Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P (Supreme Court) The submission of the appellants/promoters is that under Section 40(1) of the Act only the interest or penalty imposed by the authority can be recovered as arrears of land revenue and no recovery certificate for the principal amount as determined by the authority […]
Bhupesh Rathod Vs Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia (Supreme Court of India) Complaint filed by Company u/s 138 of NI Act could not be denied merely because Managing Director’s name appeared first in complaint. Conclusion: Merely because Managing Director’s name appeared first as acting on behalf of the Company on the registered complaint, respondent could not contended […]
A.T. Mydeen and Another Vs Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department (Supreme Court of India) High Court fell into an error while passing a common judgement, based on evidence recorded in only one trial, against two sets of accused persons having been subjected to separate trials – matter remanded Facts- The main issue involved in the matter […]
Goutam Roy & Anr. Vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Supreme Court held that There cannot be complete ban on firecrackers. Strengthen mechanism to supervise and implement (Supreme Court’s earlier directions). FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. SLP (C) No.17994/2021 @ Diary No.26789/2021 and SLP (C) Nos. 1799597/2021 @ […]
A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. ‘Security’ in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment.
Accident benefit could have been claimed and availed of only if the accident had taken place subsequent to the renewal of the policy. The policy in the instant case was lying in a lapsed condition since 14th October, 2011 and, therefore, was not in force as on 06.03.2012, resultantly, the claim over Accident benefit was not payable to the respondent as per the conditions of the contract of insurance.
Transport Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs Employees State Insurance Corpn. (Supreme Court of India) Non-challenge of validity of Regulation 31-A confirms interest demand under the same Facts- The subject matter of the present dispute is demand made by the Employees State Insurance Corporation by way of contribution payable by the appellant for the period from […]
In absence of any specific averment, the prosecution in the present case doesn’t and cannot reply on section 22C(2) of the Act. Unless the company as a principal accused has committed the offence, the persons mentioned in sub-section (1) would not be liable and cannot be prosecuted.
The brief facts of the case were that the Respondent was facing several problems while their filing of GSTR Form 3B due to the several glitches that were occurring in the Online GST Portal. Amidst these glitches, the Respondent filed their GST returns for the period of July, 2017 to September, 2017 with excess amount of ₹ 923 Crores and therefore, they have sought the refund accordingly.
Held that a Will cannot be revoked by an agreement and can be revoked only as per the modes specified under Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act.
