Manish Aggarwal Vs RCI Industries And Technologies Ltd. (Delhi High Court) In the present case, quite clearly, the learned Sole Arbitrator has declined to grant the interlocutory order sought by the appellants in exercise of his discretionary power under section 17 of the A&C Act. Has this discretionary power been exercised in a manner that […]
Hari Shamsher Kaushik Vs Jasbir Singh, Managing Director, M/S Accura Care Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint observing that since the company had not been impleaded as an accused, the liability of the respondent as its Managing Director could not be attached under section 141 […]
Arbitral Tribunal had, on sufficient cause being shown, the power to recall the order passed by it under Section 25(a) of 1996 Act, terminating arbitral proceedings.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs IJM Corporation Berhad (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court held that when Petitioner has granted the contractor an extension of time for a specified period, it cannot turn around to contend that the extension was mere provisional and it’s allowed to reassess or reduce the amount of days by which […]
There is no reason why a person who has been declared bankrupt by a foreign court in terms of the law applicable to that jurisdiction, should be afforded protection by the Indian Courts on technical objections being raised with regard to the validity of the foreign judgment. In the modern times of globalization, foreign creditors cannot be treated differently from domestic creditors.
Universal City Studios Llc & Ors. Vs Vegamovies Run & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Defendant Websites provide illegal content for free and such availability of content is supported by the advertisements featuring on these websites. The primary purpose of the Defendant Websites is to commit or facilitate copyright infringement. Thus, Defendants No. 1 to 12 […]
Petitioners company is a ‘repeat offender’, this Court is of the view that the respondents are entitled in law to impose a higher compounding fee i.e. five per cent instead of three per cent.
Court is of the view that time of eight hours to file reply to the show cause notice was neither reasonable nor effective, as within this short time, the Petitioner could not have supplied relevant information and documents to substantiate his case.
CIT(A) and ITAT have set aside the assessment order on the ground that Rs.19 crore cannot be added as additional income of the Trust since exemption on corpus donation is allowed on purchase of land, as it is a purchase of capital asset.
It is settled law that exclusion or inclusion of one or other comparable would by itself not constitute a question of law unless it is shown that there are important functional dissimilarities or vital material facts which go to the root of profitability or where other material circumstances are involved.
