Hon’ble Supreme court, upheld the judgment or Ranchi club (Majorly Mutuality Concept). Explanation provided in the law doesn’t apply on incorporated bodies. Held that NEITHER SERVICE TAX NOR VAT can be levied on incorporated club/ Associations. I am sure going to impact taxability in GST era too.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) proceedings would have an overriding effect over the Tea Act, 1953 and even without such consent of the Central Government, the insolvency proceedings under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC initiated by the operational creditor should be maintainable.
State of Arunachal Pradesh Vs Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas & Anr. (Supreme Court) A prosecution, if otherwise maintainable, would lie both under the IPC and the MV Act, since both the statutes operate with full vigour, in their own independent spheres. Even assuming that some of the provisions of the MV Act and IPC […]
Supreme Court of India admits appeal but upholds the denial of anticipatory bail for P. Chidambaram in the INX Media money laundering case, citing the gravity of the economic offense.
Wherein condonation of delay sought was not for filing the petition under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, 1996 for the first time but for the delay of 8 days in re-presenting the petition beyond the date fixed after it was returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code before the District Judge,
If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’
Director of Elementary Education, Odisha & Ors. Vs Pramod Kumar Sahoo (Supreme Court) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the distinction between Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained Matric Teacher has not been appreciated by the Tribunal and the same error was committed by the High Court as well. The concession […]
Winding up petition filed in October 2016 by IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. against La-Fin before the Bombay High Court which was transferred to the NCLT with respect to the alleged default by La-Fin in not complying with its undertaking to buy back 442 lakh equity shares of MCX-SX (a group company of La-Fin) from IL&FS in August 2012 was time-barred being beyond the period of three-years mentioned in Article 137 of the Limitation Act and could not therefore be proceeded with any further.
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) was equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as substitution of functionaries (CMM as CJM) qua the administrative and executive or so to say non-judicial functions discharged by them in light of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, would not be inconsistent with Section 14 of the 2002 Act.
M/s. Canara Nidhi Limited Vs M. Shashikala And Others (Supreme Court) Conclusion: Since proceedings under Section 34 were summary proceedings and was not in the nature of a regular suit and in the arbitration proceedings, the parties had sufficient opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence, therefore, there was no necessity of adducing fresh evidence […]
