Supreme Court upheld a Delhi High Court order directing release of an imported Maserati car seized by DRI on failure to issue a show-cause notice within time prescribed under section 110 (2) of Customs Act, 1962 as section 110A functions as an interim arrangement to allow release of goods, including perishable or fast-moving items, but does not in any way impede or limit the mandatory time limit in Section 110(2).
The Supreme Court of India has upheld a property attachment order from 2012, dismissing a challenge by a company that bought the property years later.
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition, upholding a Kerala High Court ruling that hotels choosing to pay sales tax under regular provisions cannot be assessed under a compounded scheme.
Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, affirming that ITAT rightly remanded the case to TPO to reassess ALP of intra-group services, stressing that Section 92C(3) conditions must be examined before adjustments.
Supreme Court held that speculative investors cannot be permitted to trigger CIRP as this would undermine revival, destabilise projects, and prejudice genuine homebuyers. Accordingly, orders, setting aside admission of the Section 7 applications, stand affirmed.
Supreme Court held that customs duty exemption provided vide notification no. 151/2009-Cus dated 31-12-2009 is available on import of G Watch (Smart Watch) from the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Supreme Court held that since the claim was filed, verified and informed to the Successful Resolution Applicant, the claim squarely falls within Clause 18.4(ii) read with Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the Resolution Plan. Accordingly, possession of residential apartment is directed. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
The Supreme Court ruled that recording reasons to believe is mandatory for all warrantless searches under special laws, reinforcing due process and preventing arbitrary action.
The Supreme Court has ruled that an application under the State Bank of India’s (SBI) One Time Settlement (OTS) 2020 Scheme is invalid without the mandatory 5% upfront payment of the settlement amount.
Supreme Court of India upholds a landlord’s eviction claim, ruling that a tenant is legally barred from denying the landlord’s ownership after decades of tenancy.
