We are of the considered opinion that this was not a correct approach of the High Court for the simple reason that merely because one authority has followed its own decision in another case and that matter in appeal has been dismissed on technical grounds still the High Court has to decide the question on merits.
Respondent No.1 herein (the complainant) had lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Bar Council’) on 19.12.2003 against the appellant, who is an Advocate by profession,
Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India (Supreme Court of India); Hon’ble SC held that that neither the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 read with the enactment of 1985, or the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, would apply so as to interdict the sale of mineral water in hotels and restaurants at prices […]
1. SC accepted the submission of Government which has stated that (i) The Union government has extended the deadline for Aadhaar linkage with all schemes of its Ministries/Departments until 31 March 2018; (ii) As far as Aadhaar linkage with bank accounts is concerned, for existing bank accounts, the last date for the completion of the process may be extended to 31 March 2018;
The decision relates to deductibility of excise duty u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 43-B requires cumulative existence of following; The deduction claimed by the Assessee must be otherwise allowable under the other provisions of the Act.
Incentive meant for small scale industrial undertakings cannot be availed by industrial undertakings which do not continue as small scale industrial undertakings during the relevant period, the bench held.
Advance deposit of central excise duty constitutes actual payment of duty within the meaning of Section 43B of the Central Excise Act and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction of the said amount.
Mere issuance of cheque by the client may not debar him from contesting the liability. If liability is disputed, the advocate has to independently prove the contract. Claim based on percentage of subject matter in litigation cannot be the basis of a complaint under Section 138 of the Act.
The reason for imposing costs on the petitioner is that on perusal of the translation filed by the petitioner, we find that the impugned judgment does not make out any head and tail. It is difficult to read much less to understand as to what the judgment contains.
While upholding the proceedings against Advocate Rohit Tandon, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court confirmed the Delhi High Courts’ order denying bail for possession and conversion of Demonetized Currency.
