Reading of the judgment dated 07.7.2011 rendered in the earlier writ petition, it becomes clear that the petitioner had challenged the vires of Section 205A and 205C on the ground that these provisions were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also argued that these provisions could not be given retrospective effect. The petitioner had also submitted that huge corpus had accumulated in IEPF as unclaimed amount. All these contentions were taken note of and specifically rejected.
NSE byelaws, rules and regulations would have statutory force. These statutory byelaws were brought into effect with the approval of the Securities Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) under Section 9 of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956. The said bye-laws would prevail over the Limitation Act, 1963.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2/SOL, it is stated that the student is not entitled to any relief in the present petition for the reason that as per the rules of the respondent No.2/SOL contained in the prospectus, only a bonafide student of a college is entitled to migration to SOL and admittedly, the student had paid her regular fee with I.P. College upto April, 2011 and not thereafter and resultantly, on the date when she had sought migration, she was not a bonafide student enrolled with any college and, therefore, she could not be considered for purposes of migration to the respondent No.2/SOL. In support of the aforesaid averments, a copy of the prospectus of SOL for the academic year 2011-12 with regard to migration/direct admission is enclosed with the counter affidavit as Annexure R-1.
If in the sale it becomes reasonably necessary for the manufacturer of adaptable goods, to refer to the trademark of the relatable goods, such reference would not amount to an infringement of the trademark under which the relatable goods are sold, but has misapplied the evidence on record. The error committed is by proceeding upon the premise that the evidence establishes that the respondent manufactures gaskets specifically for the special sizes of pressure cookers manufactured by the appellant, ignoring that the evidence is to the contrary
The Delhi High Court today asked the Institute of Charted Accountants in India (ICAI) to allow disabled persons appearing for the CA examination to take the their relatives’ help in writing the papers for them.
The appellants are carrying on the business of financiers: they are not dealing in motor-vehicles. The motor-vehicle purchased by the customer is registered in the name of the customer and remains at all material times so registered in his name. In the letter taken from the customer under which the latter agrees to keep the vehicle insured, it is expressly recited that the vehicle has been given as security for the loan advanced by the appellants. As a security for repayment of the loan, the customer executes a promissory-note for the amount paid by the appellants to the dealer of the vehicle.
Honourable High court has agreed with the The Tribunal that the ‘make available’ condition was not satisfied inasmuch as no technical knowledge etc, was made available by the assessee to the Indian insurance companies operating in India. The Tribunal conclusions are based on an assessment of the factual matrix of the case at hand and are factual in nature. As there is no perversity in the findings, it does not give rise to a substantial question of law.
What is meant by the term change of opinion? (ii) Whether assessment proceedings can be validly reopened under Section 147 of the Act, even within four year, if an assessee has furnished full and true particulars at the time of original assessment with reference to income alleged to have escaped assessment and whether and when in such cases reopening is valid or invalid on the ground of change of opinion?
In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Union of India this Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the present challenge to the impugned Award by way of a petition under Section 34 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the preliminary objection of the Respondent to the maintainability of the present petition under Section 34 of the Act requires to be upheld. This will not preclude, of course, the Petitioner from seeking other appropriate remedies that may be available in accordance with law.
A confession of the co-accused is admissible only under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. One of the essential requirements of the said provision is that the two accused should be tried jointly. Since the confession of the co-accused is not admissible as he is not being jointly tried with the Petitioner and besides this piece of evidence there is no other evidence, no charge can be framed against the Petitioner for offence under Section 135A of the Customs Act.
