The Honble High Court observed that in terms of Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, a challenge to the order of a Commissioner can be made only on a substantial question of law. The present case was totally factual in nature and no substantial question of law took place.
Delhi High Court held that the remedy of arbitration provided in section 11 of the SARFAESI Act cannot override the special remedies stipulated under the set of special laws, and therefore even statutory arbitration cannot derogate from a remedy available to a lender for enforcing a security interest and the doctrine of election is simply not available. Quite clearly, matters covered by special laws, which create special rights, to be adjudicated and enforced by special forums, under special procedures, in this case the DRT, are non-arbitrable.
Delhi High Court held that High Court had disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal as the Appellate Tribunal was not functional, however order was passed when the Appellate Tribunal became functional. Accordingly the order passed in LPA will not come in the way of the parties as an equally efficacious alternative remedy available before the Appellate Tribunal.
Respondents have grossly failed in their duty in law in not passing the appeal effect orders and issuing refund as per Section 153(5) of the Act and their action of withholding the refund is ex facie contrary to and in contempt of Article 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
In any event, in accordance with the mandate of law, the appeal effect order has to be passed within three months of passing of the appeal order.
CIT Vs Somnath Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The Revenue in these proceedings admits to the genuineness of the expenditure. There is also no dispute that the Assessee is bound to draw up its Profit and Loss account and balance sheet in compliance with the accounting standards of the ICAI. The learned counsel for […]
Ratnagiri Gas And Power Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner’s responses dated 13th June, 2022, and 30th June, 2022, have not been considered by the AO while passing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 11. Consequently, the impugned order passed under […]
Re-assessment proceedings were sought to be initiated against a non-existent company as it had amalgamated with Petitioner and income of assessee had already been accounted for in books of accounts of Petitioner.
Delhi High Court held that rewriting of a contract between two parties, especially a commercial contract, is completely impermissible in law. Accordingly, an arbitral award which rewrites the contract is bound to be set aside.
Delhi High Court held that import of firearms is not prohibited the Arms Act and also there is no restriction that import is permissible only if the parts cannot be manufactured locally. Accordingly, it was directed to release the goods so imported.
