Access significant and up-to-date high court judgments for legal insights and precedent. Stay informed about the latest legal decisions and their impact on various areas of law.
Corporate Law : Allahabad HC asserts that Section 498A IPC is often misused against entire families to exert pressure. Employment prospects should...
Corporate Law : The Orissa High Court ruled that voter ID alone is not reliable for determining age in insurance claims, directing LIC to reassess...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court recent judgment highlights the alarming misuse of the POCSO Act, where cases are filed due to family objections t...
Corporate Law : J&K&L High Court quashes money laundering case against Farooq Abdullah, citing absence of a scheduled offence under the Prevention...
Corporate Law : Jharkhand HC directs the state to use its Special Branch to identify illegal immigrants allegedly from Bangladesh in six districts...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Goods and Services Tax : HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA: Ramesh Kumar Patodia v. Citi Bank [WPO NO. 547 OF 2019 JUNE 24, 2022 ] Facts: ♦ Petitioner is a holder ...
Goods and Services Tax : CGST, Gurugram (Anti Evasion) Vs Gaurav Dhir (Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Courts, Gurugram) U/s 132(1)) r/w 132(1)(b)(C)(e...
Corporate Law : In order to dispense with the physical signatures on the daily orders (which are not important/final orders and judgments) of the ...
Custom Duty : Delhi High Court admits petition questioning Validity of provisions in Finance Act 2022 which overruled landmark Judgment of Supr...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that amount paid towards community services and social welfare under Memorandum of Settlement under the Ind...
Goods and Services Tax : Sri Avantika Contractors (I) Limited. Vs Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (GST) and others. (Telangana High Court) Telangana...
Custom Duty : Delhi HC reduces pre-deposit requirement for Shubh Impexs appeal in customs duty dispute over imported goods classification....
Corporate Law : Bombay HC upholds priority of Janaseva Sahakari Bank's secured interest over Sales Tax Dept’s claims, setting aside the mutation...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court quashes reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, citing procedural lapses and lack of valid grounds unde...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court mandates new video conferencing protocols to enhance transparency and accessibility in court proceedings. Rea...
Income Tax : Income Tax Department Issues Instructions for Assessing Officers after Adverse Observations of Hon. Allahabad High Court in in Civ...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court has exempted the Lawyers from wearing Gowns practicing in the High Court with effect from March 2, 2022 till furt...
Corporate Law : Till further orders, all documents/ not summons/Daks through physical mode be dispensed with, except where there, is a specific or...
Income Tax : Hon’ble Judges to hear the matters physically at the Principal Seat at Bombay, on experimental basis with effect from 1st Decemb...
Order of cancellation of registration and order rejecting application seeking revocation of cancellation are not sustainable as hearing was not granted and proper reasons were not assigned, violating principles of natural justice; Show cause notice issued is bereft of any material particulars and the same is quashed
Section 12 is essentially a provision which enables the Registrar to permit registration of a mark which is identical or similar to an existing mark in respect of same or similar goods. It does not envisage honest and concurrent user as a defence to an allegation of infringement of a registered trade mark.
Harsh Sehgal Vs State & Anr (Delhi High Court) Facts- The complainant/respondent no. 2, Galaxy Datamatics Pvt. Ltd., averred that the accused no. 1, M/S Takshila Retail Pvt. Ltd., earlier known as M/s Blues Clothing Pvt. Ltd., accused no. 2, Dinesh Sehgal and accused no. 3, Harsh Sehgal, approached the respondent no.2 for a short-term […]
Vakiyath Koya Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Facts- These writ petitions are preferred by owners of stage carriages as well as contract carriages, claiming the benefit of exemption from payment of tax for the period affected by the restrictions and regulations imposed due to Covid-19 pandemic. Petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus […]
Ketan Ribbons Pvt Ltd Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi (Delhi High Court) Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed Assessment Order, Notice of demand and Penalty notice passed on 23-05-2021 during COVID-19 where show cause notice and draft assessment order were issued during lockdown and the assessee could not file any reply. The court further was […]
Credit notes not affecting input tax already deposited cannot be treated as taxable turnover by the extended meaning of Section 2 sub-section (lii) Explanation VII of Kerala Value Added Tax Act.
Reassessment notice under Section 148 of IT Act i.e, impugned notice if carried to its logical end, in the facts and circumstances of the case, will clearly neutralize all these arguments and the writ petitioner assessee bank will not be aggrieved in any manner.
Srei Equipment Finance Limited Vs Additional / Joint/ Deputy / Assistant CIT (Calcutta High Court) Facts- The appellant had filed the writ petition challenging the notice dated 23rd March, 2022 which is an opportunity granted to the assessee to show cause as to why the proposal made in the notice by way of giving effect […]
CGST, Gurugram (Anti Evasion) Vs Gaurav Dhir (Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Courts, Gurugram) U/s 132(1)) r/w 132(1)(b)(C)(e)(f) CGST Act 2017 Date of Arrest: 18.05.2022 Involvement: lllegal availment of GST refund amounting to Rs. 7,60,89,626/- File No. GEXCOM/AEVRFN/77/2022 AE-O/OCOMMR-CGST-GURUGRAM APPLICATION SEEKING 14 DAYS JUDICIAL REMAND OF THE ACCUSED GAURAV DHIR 1. Brief facts of the case […]
HC held that the Managing Director of a company should not be directly summoned by authorities under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 . Further held that, authorized representatives of a company are to be summoned and MD can only be summoned, if the former is not cooperating or if investigation is to be completed expeditiously.
