Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal Vs Bhanuj Jindal (Supreme Court of India) Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted his best to persuade us to interfere with the orders impugned, whereby the petitioners’ prayer for exemption altogether from appearance in the case pertaining to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has not […]
Balram Garg Vs Securities And Exchange Board of India (Supreme Court of India) Facts- P. Chand Jeweller Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on April 13, 2005 under the Companies Act, 1956 as a Private Limited Company. However, pursuant to a resolution passed by the shareholders on July 5, 2011, the company was converted into a Public Limited […]
The damages awarded against the appellant may have gone beyond the actual loss suffered by the respondent and may not represent the actual loss suffered by him in monetary terms. But the provision of Section 14 of the 1986 Act permits awarding punitive damages.
Union Of India & Ors. Vs Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) Facts- M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. submitting that said Writ Petitioner was entitled on the basis of Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST Act for compensation in receipt of delayed payment as detailed in […]
Trial Court and the first appellate Court concluded that the Will was true and valid and that there were no suspicious circumstances. Held that the absolute owner of a property is entitled even to bequeath his properties in favour of strangers.
Wipro Finance Ltd. Vs CIT (Supreme court of India) Facts- The appellant submitted ROI on 29.11.1997 for the A.Y. 1997-1998, mentioning loss of income, amongst others, owing to exchange fluctuation of Rs. 1,10,53,909/. After processing the return u/s. 143(1)(a), the assessment was completed on 16.3.2000. As against the loss declared by the appellant due to exchange […]
In an action for infringement when the defendant’s trademark is identical with the plaintiff’s mark, the court will not enquire whether the infringement is such as is likely to deceive or cause confusion.
Where there was delay in handing over possession to homebuyers, there was remedy available to the Consumer under Consumer Protection Act and Real Estate Regular Act which run parallel side by side. Moreover, one sided clauses in Agreement amounted to unfair trade practice and could not govern the refund mechanism therefore, refund was allowable to assessee with 9% interest from the date of deposit allowed.
SC Held That (Motor Vehicles Act ,1988) – Third Party Insurance deemed to be transferred along with effective control over vehicle in a Hire Agreement.
Myrayash Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Supreme Court) The plea challenges the constitutional validity of GST Levy on Lease/ Rental Payments. The Supreme Court of India has asked the petitioner(s) to serve an advance copy to the Additional Solicitor General to seek instructions in a plea challenging constitutional validity of levy of GST […]
