The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that while government can deviate from the route of tenders or public auctions for the grant of contracts, the deviation must not be discriminatory or arbitrary. The deviation from the tender route has to be justified and such a justification must comply with the requirements of Article 14.
Red Chilli International Sales Vs ITO (Supreme Court of India) We with the petitioner that the impugned judgment rejecting the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy does not take into consideration several judgments of this Court, on the jurisdiction of High Court, as writ petitions have been entertained to be examined whether the […]
SC ruling on Whether settled Indian citizens in Sikkim before it became an Indian State w.e.f 26-04-1975 are eligible for exemption u/s 10(26AAA) of Income-tax Act,1961
Whether special road tax charged by State of Himachal Pradesh for motor vehicles violating rules is in the nature of penalty and thus against competence of State under Constitution of India?
UCO Bank Vs CIT (Supreme Court of India) We have to consider whether interest on a loan whose recovery is doubtful and which has not been recovered by the assessee-bank for the last three years but has been kept in a suspense account and has not been brought to the profit and loss account of […]
Supreme Court of India in this case was considering the meaning of the term diversification when the appellant in this case set up machinery for manufacture of Double LIP DRY BLEND CROWN CORK as against SPUN LINE CROWN CORK which was being manufactured earlier and contended that it was diversification to be eligible for exemption.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in a case where the borrower also challenges the auction sale and does not accept the same and also challenges the steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) of the SARFAESI Act with respect to secured assets, the borrower has to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the secured creditor along with interest as per section 2(g) of the Act 1993 and as per section 2(g), “debt” means any liability inclusive of interest which is claimed as due from any person.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that deposit of earnest money as well as balance amount on order of the Trial court shows readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to execute the Contract.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that MSMED Act does not provide any priority over the debt dues of the secured creditor akin to Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. Further, it was held that so far as recoveries under the SARFAESI Act with respect to the secured assets would prevail over the recoveries under the MSMED Act to recover the amount under the award / decree passed by the Facilitation Council.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the object and purpose of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act that merely because in the revenue records the secured properties are shown as agricultural land is not sufficient to attract the said provision.
