It is thus clear that since the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted....

Arcelormittal India Private Limited Vs Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)  Any person who wishes to submit a resolution plan, if he or it does so acting jointly, or in concert with other persons, which person or other persons happen to either manage or control or be promoters of a corporate debtor, […]...

Union of India Vs Mohit Mineral Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) (1) Whether the Compensation to States Act, 2017 is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament? Ans. 1 -The Compensation to States Act, 2017 is not beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. (2) Whether Compensation to States Act, 2017 violates Constitution ...

CIT Vs M/S C. C. Chokshi And Co. (Supreme Court of India) The Registry has listed these matters on the ground that the tax effect is less than Rs. 1 Crore and, therefore, as per the Circular of the CBDT, these are not pressed by the Income tax Department and are to be dismissed on […]...

Kehar Singh (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors.Vs Nachittar Kaur & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Once the factum of existence of legal necessity stood proved, then, in our view, no co­-coparcener (son) has a right to challenge the sale made by the Karta of his family. The plaintiff being a son was one of the co­-coparceners along with ...

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Another Vs. Union Of India & Others (Supreme Court) (1) Whether the Aadhaar Project creates or has tendency to create surveillance state and is, thus, unconstitutional on this ground? Incidental Issues: (a) What is the magnitude of protection that need to be accorded to collection, storage and usa...

CIT Vs Classic Binding Industries (Supreme Court)  In the instant case, we are concerned with the assessees who had established their undertakings in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Sub-section (3), as noted above, mentions the period of 10 years commencing with the initial Assessment Year. Sub-section (6) puts a cap of 10 years, which is...

M/s. Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Having regard to the facts of the case, more particularly when the petitioner has already paid the tax and insofar as other dues are concerned, which are being demanded, a dispute is raised in this special leave pet...

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that CBDT's Office Memorandum (‘OM’) dated 29th February, 2016 & 31.07.2017 by which AO's have been directed to grant stay of disputed demand on payment of 20%/ 15% does not fetter the power of the AO & CIT to grant stay on payment of amounts lesser than 15%/ 20%. ...

M/s popat & Kotecha property & ORS. Vs Ashim Kumar Dey (Supreme Court of India) Issue- Whether after the amendment of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act by  Amendment Act No. 14 of 2001 with effect from 10th July, 2001 [which had incorporated sub-section (8) to Section 5] whether a tenant who defaults in payment of his/her...