Union Bank of India Vs Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Supreme Court of India) The Supreme Court upheld Rajasthan High Court judgment and held that RERA would not apply in relation to the transaction between the borrower and the banks and financial institutions in cases where security interest has been created by mortgaging the property […]
K.L. Suneja Vs Dr. (Mrs.) Manjeet Kaur Monga (D) (Supreme Court of India) An interesting question arose in this case where an apartment buyer was returned the money paid by her by way of a Pay-order by the developer instead of giving the flat. This was disputed by the flat allottee as she was willing […]
Supreme Court ruling: Disputes affecting only a fraction of a project should not halt the entire venture. Explore the legal perspective on Developer Group India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surinder Singh Marwah. Learn about the principles guiding court orders in such matters.
SC set aside the condition imposed by Chhattisgarh HC, of depositing INR 70 Lakh for grant of bail in a matter of wrongful availment of ITC
Supreme Court held that insertion of sub-section (6) to section 1 is effective from 20.10.1989. Hence, on and after 20.10.1989, irrespective of number of persons employed a factory or an establishment shall be governed by the ESI Act.
It is held that HC has erred in entertaining the writ petition against the SCN and quashing of notice is pre-mature and the merits of the case have to be considered by the original authority in an appropriate proceeding.
SC held that the activity of digital offset and offset printing amounts to manufacture and same is classifiable under heading chapter 4911 of Central Excise Tariff.
Adjudication in civil matters is based on preponderance of probabilities whereas adjudication in criminal cases is based on the principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent and the guilt of the accused should be proved to the hilt and the proof should be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court held that persons other than searched persons shall be liable to pay the interest on late filing of the return under Section 158BC even in absence of a notice under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act.
An interesting question arose in this case where the Appellant and Lenovo contended that the ADP imported by it was classifiable under the entry 84715000 as against the department’s classification under the entry 84713010 since they could not be said to be portable.
