SC has imposed penalty of 25000/- INR on the Revenue Department for delay in filing the Special Leave Petition (“SLP”) for wastage of judicial time. Further, directed to recover the amount from officers responsible for the delay in filing the SLP.
When the settlement with regard to a dispute between the parties was not arrived at under Section 18 of MSMED Act, 2006, necessarily, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council should take up the dispute for arbitration under Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act or it might refer to institution or Centre to provide alternate dispute resolution services and provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 were made applicable as if there was an agreement between the parties under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the 1996 Act. Therefore, Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable to the arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act.
The Court ordered the absolute Confiscation of Peas and Pulses but if the importer concerned opted for re-export, within another period of two weeks from today, such a prayer for re- export might be granted by the authorities after recovery of the necessary redemption fine and subject to the importer discharging other statutory obligations. If no such option was exercised within prescribed time, the goods should stand confiscated absolutely.
Supreme Court Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah issued notice in the appeal against the High Court verdict and granted a stay on order declaring imposition of IGST on the import of oxygen concentrators by individuals for personal use as unconstitutional.
In Re: Distribution Of Essential Supplies And Services During Pandemic (Supreme Court of India) We direct the UoI to file an affidavit, which shall address the issues and questions raised in Section E, wherein it shall ensure that each issue is responded to individually and no issue is missed out. We also direct that the […]
NCLAT by writing to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, we trust and hope that the reappointment process should be completed expeditiously, as there is no necessity of issuance of any advertisement for participation of other eligible candidates.
Lalit Kumar Jain Vs Union of India (Supreme Court) 1. Supreme Court on Friday upheld provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) allowing lenders to pursue insolvency proceedings against promoter guarantors of companies facing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. 2. A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Ravindra Bhat delivered the judgement. The ruling […]
An abstract rule, principle or test can not determine the character of a transaction, depends on facts and circumstances. CIT Vs. R V Gupta , Delhi High Court Also decided the question of distinction between a capital sale and an adventure in the nature of trade was considered by the Supreme Court in G. Venkataswami […]
India Resurgence Arc Private Limited Vs M/s. Amit Metaliks Limited & Anr. (Supreme Court of India) “Equality” means equality among equals or within the same class. In the present facts of the case, the appellant company is said to be the assignee of the rights, title and interest carried by Religare Finvest Limited as secured […]
UPPTCL had no power and authority and or jurisdiction to realize labour cess under the Cess Act in respect of the first contract by withholding dues in respect of other contracts and/or invoking a performance guarantee. The finding of the High Court was sustainable as UPPTCL acted in excess of power by its acts impugned, when there was admittedly no assessment or levy of cess under the Cess Act.
