Shankar Nagesh Mutkiri Vs Reserve Bank of India (Supreme Court of India) Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to take steps to regulate or disable unauthorized money lending platforms; to frame guidelines to ensure oversight over digital money lenders and for […]
C.S.T. Delhi Vs Sojitz Corporation (Supreme Court of India) It is not in dispute that the service tax was sought to be levied for the transaction which has taken place outside India for the period between November, 1999 and March, 2002. The show cause notice was issued on 20.04.2005. It is not in dispute that […]
Commissioner of GST And Central Excise Chennai Vs Komatsu India Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J K Maheshwari, issued Notice in the case of Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Chennai v. M/s […]
Supreme Court held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be transferred as per convenience of accused. However, as petitioner is a woman and a senior citizen. Therefore, she can always seek exemption from personal appearance.
Arsha Vijnana Trust Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Supreme Court of India) During the course of hearing, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant states that he has instructions not to press the present appeal as the denial of grant of exemption/benefit under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even if set […]
Commissioner of Central Excise Pune III Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd (Supreme Court) The question before the learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short ‘the Tribunal’] was whether the service tax was payable on a premium in terms of the insurance policy covering the future period at revised rates, if […]
Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd Vs Aloke Kumar (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: Hon’ble Supreme Court while allowing the appeal observed that Resolutions passed by General Body of the Society is supreme and the member of a Society has no independent right qua the Society and it is the Society […]
It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that it was a case of wrong mentioning of the Section and the case would fall under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act. It is pointed out that, in the show cause notice, there was a reference to Section 114(i) or 114(iii) of the Customs Act. It is submitted that therefore on mere wrong mentioning of Section, the levy of penalty shall not fail.
Supreme Court observed that National Commission ought not to have gone beyond the grounds of repudiation of the claim and the matter was remanded to the State Commission for taking a decision afresh on the claim of the appellants on the grounds which formed the basis of repudiation and determine as to whether at the material point of time there was sufficient balance to cover the claim on account of declaration made as regards loss suffered by the appellants.
Supreme Court after applying the law laid down in Judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi have reassessed the amount pertaining to compensation and have enhanced the compensation under the head loss of dependency but have deducted the compensation under the head loss of consortium.
