In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking definition of the particular product in HSN, applying common parlance test, principal purpose test and end user test held that the product in dispute is Modified Vapour Absorption Chillers (MVAC) falling under heading 84.18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not heat pumps.
Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the builder should also pay interest for it’s default to the buyer at the same rate (18% in this case), which is collected by him on default of the buyer as per agreement.
In present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by observing that the income of people of the similar status as of deceased have to be taken into consideration
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeals held that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 would not be committed if the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque; and when a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonoured when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the offence under Section 138 will stand attracted
Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs CIT (Supreme Court) The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing […]
Supreme Court held that the appellant-JSPL is duly complying with the prescription in Explanation to Rule 3 of Distribution License Rules and hence cancellation of licence is unjustified.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that a preliminary enquiry shall be conducted by the High Court on the issue whether the dispute is arbitrable or not while deciding an application made under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrators.
In present facts of the case, it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court of India that an NGO could not have filed writ petition before Honble High Court as it do not have any locus standi in present facts of the case as it was not an aggrieved party. Also, it was observed that the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.
In present facts of the case, while allowing the appeal it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud and the judgment or decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity.
