UCO Bank Vs CIT (Supreme Court of India) We have to consider whether interest on a loan whose recovery is doubtful and which has not been recovered by the assessee-bank for the last three years but has been kept in a suspense account and has not been brought to the profit and loss account of […]
Supreme Court of India in this case was considering the meaning of the term diversification when the appellant in this case set up machinery for manufacture of Double LIP DRY BLEND CROWN CORK as against SPUN LINE CROWN CORK which was being manufactured earlier and contended that it was diversification to be eligible for exemption.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in a case where the borrower also challenges the auction sale and does not accept the same and also challenges the steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) of the SARFAESI Act with respect to secured assets, the borrower has to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the secured creditor along with interest as per section 2(g) of the Act 1993 and as per section 2(g), “debt” means any liability inclusive of interest which is claimed as due from any person.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that deposit of earnest money as well as balance amount on order of the Trial court shows readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to execute the Contract.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that MSMED Act does not provide any priority over the debt dues of the secured creditor akin to Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. Further, it was held that so far as recoveries under the SARFAESI Act with respect to the secured assets would prevail over the recoveries under the MSMED Act to recover the amount under the award / decree passed by the Facilitation Council.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the object and purpose of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act that merely because in the revenue records the secured properties are shown as agricultural land is not sufficient to attract the said provision.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed while allowing the appeal that as per Circular No. 760 dated 13th January 1998, the CBDT have stated that in case of transactions which are, in substance, in the nature of hire-purchase, the receipts of hire charges would not be in the nature of interest and hence assessee were liable to pay interest under Interest-Tax Act, 1974.
IFB Agro Industries Limited Vs Sicgil India Limited (Supreme Court of India) Recently, the Supreme Court in the landmark case of IFB Agro Industries Limited v. Sicgil India Limited and Ors held that NCLT does not have the power to exercise rectificatory jurisdiction under the section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 for the matters […]
Shekhar Resorts Limited Vs Union of India (Supreme High Court) An interesting question arose before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India when the appellant had filed an application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 within the due date as prescribed and the application was accepted and necessary forms were issued for payment of […]
As relates Section 5 of the Limitation Act showing ‘sufficient cause’ is the only criterion for condoning delay. ‘Sufficient Cause’ is the cause for which a party could not be blamed.
