Supreme Court reviews IBC amendments, settling disputes between home buyers and builders. Case highlights legislative intent and project completion.
Vikram Singh Vs Shyoji Ram (Supreme Court of India) SC observed that it is surprising that on the one hand, the Bank Managers have specifically deposed that no such bank account was opened and maintained in their bank while on the other hand the cheque drawn by the respondent in favour of the appellant, was […]
Tata Steel Ltd. Vs The State of Jharkhand (Supreme Court of India) During the course of hearing of this appeal, the learned senior counsel agree that the reasoning given by the High Court in the impugned judgment on the locus standi of the appellant is not justified and correct. The appellant is a registered company, […]
State of Orissa Vs Utkal Distilleries Ltd (Supreme Court) Constitution makers distributed the term ‘alcohol liquor’ into two heads, viz., (a) for human consumption; and (b) other than for human consumption. It has been held that the alcoholic liquors, which are for human consumption, are put in Entry 51 List II authorizing the State Legislature […]
Exemption notification should not be liberally construed and it was for the assessee to show that he came within the purview of the notification as on and after 01.07.2012, such activity by the Market Committees was put in the Negative List, it could safely be said that under the 2006 circular, the Market Committees were not exempted from payment of service tax on such activities.
Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject, it is well-settled that mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty or damages for breach of civil obligations and liabilities.
Held that the position that would emerge is that when a company is the payee of the cheque based on which a complaint is filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant necessarily should be the Company which would be represented by an employee who is authorized.
Yashi Constructions Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India) It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not deposit the amount under the Sabka Vishwas – (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) within the time limit provided under the Scheme, i.e., within 30 days. In that view of the matter, the High Court […]
Date on which the Resolution Plan was approved by the learned NCLT, all claims stood frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the Resolution Plan, would survive.
Parthasarathy Vs E Springs Avenues Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court) Supreme Court held High Court has no jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to remand the matter to the same Arbitrator unless it is consented by both the parties that the matter be remanded to the same Arbitrator. FULL TEXT OF […]
