As you are aware that Arbitration is one of the best Alternate Disputes Resolution process, which saves time, money and energy of the parties. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 no where prohibits deciding of cases through arbitration.
The petitioner shall be entitled for return of the surety bond and the bank guarantee furnished. If the petitioner, upon filing the appeal with the deposit as aforesaid, files with the first respondent, the details of the appeal and the deposit made, the first respondent shall within ten [10] working days from the date of receipt of such information, return the bank guarantee/surety bond furnished.
High Court favoured an order passed by the Controlling Authority/ Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which directed government bodies to pay gratuity amount claimed by former employees from the time they were employed as daily wage earners till their employment was regularised.
HC held that no stamp duty is liable to be paid on an award for compensation made under Section 3(G) National Highway Act, 1956 (NHA).
Unique Instruments And MFRS. Pvt Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) High Court that mere consideration of reply and submissions would not be sufficient and opportunity of personal hearing was to be granted and same would not indicate that the petitioner was present during the hearing of the proceedings leading to cancellation of […]
HC held that ’Pattadar Pass Book cum Title Deed’ is classifiable under HSN 4820 and it is not a document classifiable under HSN 4907.
Submission of petitioners that proceeding for offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not maintainable once the complainant invokes Section 138 of NI Act is unacceptable.
Management of KSRTC Vs Sri K. Shivaram (Karnataka High Court) Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act refers to any amount due to workman. Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act (I.D. Act) speaks of any amount due to workman under the settlement or award under the provision of Chapter 5-A or 5-B of the I.D. […]
It is declared that there is no conflict between the power to levy GST under GST Act and power of Municipal Corporation to levy advertisement fee or advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.
Union of India Vs Anandbhavan Properties (Karnataka High Court) It is trite that when the Act specifically provides the requirements for invoking Section 83, it has to be strictly adhered to. Merely referring to the letter which indeed does not refer to section 74, it cannot be presumed that such proceedings under Section 74 of […]
