Karnataka High Court held that once the dividend is paid by the company, SEBI has no power to initiate any action against the company or its directors who have defaulted in payment of dividend as specified under Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956.
G.G. Agencies Girijeshwar Rice Mill Vs State of Karnataka & Ors. (Karnataka High Court) High Court held that as long as the appeal was preferred electronically within the prescribed period, merely because the certified copy was subsequently filed physically by the petitioner / assessee, the said circumstance cannot be made the basis to come to […]
Karnataka High Court held that National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) is a surcharge and can be levied even in absence of levy of excise duty.
Karnataka High Court held that once an account is declared to be a fraud, bank can initiate criminal proceedings even after initiation of proceedings under SARFAESI Act and having a recovery certificate
Section 30 of the Advocates’ Act confers the right on the Advocates to practice. The same does not confer any right on any advocate to park his/her vehicle inside Court premises. There is no element of public interest involved in this petition. The petition is misconceived. In the result, the same is dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that there is no prohibition under the Employees Compensation Act for blood relatives to be employer and employee.
Subex Limited Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer framed an incorrect question for his consideration that whether sale of Hardware which is not manufactured by the assessee could be considered as part of export. The CIT(A) also committed the same error. We say so because: firstly, […]
All questions relating to novation of the MOU with the execution of the Supplemental Agreement and the significance of reference to the terms of the MOU in Clause-13 of the Supplemental Agreement, which touch upon the jurisdiction of the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute, must be decided by the sole Arbitrator as required under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act.
Held that the proper officer cannot transform the detention proceedings into a confiscatory proceeding. Further, power of confiscation can be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances.
Whether the societies and the educational institutions (aided) run by the societies are subject to Right to Information Act, 2005?
