Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने Justdial लिमिटेड बनाम पीएन विग्नेश मा...
Corporate Law : SC slams High Court for 'playing it safe' on bail in Manish Sisodia's case, emphasizing that bail should be the norm, not the exce...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court quashes rape case, ruling consensual relationship. Calls for legal reforms to prevent misuse of penal laws against m...
Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने राज्य बार काउंसिलों द्वारा अत्य...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore critical GST case laws from July 2024, including SCN issuance, personal hearing rights, appeal delays, and more. Essential...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Excise Duty : Supreme Court admits Ecoboard Industries Ltd.'s appeal on excise duty for intermediate products, questioning Tribunal's duty impo...
Excise Duty : Case Title: M/s. Marwadi Shares and Finance Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27124/2023; Dat...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore Supreme Court's scrutiny of whether supplying cranes for services like loading, unloading, lifting, and shifting qualifies...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the case of Pradeep Kanthed v. Union of India where the Supreme Court issues notice to the Finance Ministry regarding the ...
Income Tax : Supreme Court rules Vodafone Idea is not liable for TDS on payments to foreign telecom operators. The decision aligns with earlier...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court overrules India Cement case, ruling that MADA judgment should not be applied retrospectively to avoid disrupting pas...
Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court held that the Purchase Price as defined u/s. 2(18) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 would not include purcha...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that Banks/ Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) are obliged to adopt restructuring process of MSME as conte...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot charge an enrolment fee or miscellaneous fees above the amount prescribed...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court of India introduces new procedures for case adjournments effective 14th February 2024, detailing strict guidelines a...
Corporate Law : Explore the updated FAQs on the implementation of the EPFO judgment dated 04.11.2022. Understand proof requirements, pension compu...
Income Tax : Comprehensive guide on CBDT's directives for AOs concerning the Abhisar Buildwell Supreme Court verdict. Dive into its implication...
Income Tax : Supreme Court's circular outlines guidelines for filing written submissions, documents, and oral arguments before Constitution Ben...
Corporate Law : The establishment M/s Radhika Theatre, situated at Warangal, Telangana was covered under ESI Act w.e.f. 16.01.1981 on the basis of...
If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’
Director of Elementary Education, Odisha & Ors. Vs Pramod Kumar Sahoo (Supreme Court) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the distinction between Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained Matric Teacher has not been appreciated by the Tribunal and the same error was committed by the High Court as well. The concession […]
Winding up petition filed in October 2016 by IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. against La-Fin before the Bombay High Court which was transferred to the NCLT with respect to the alleged default by La-Fin in not complying with its undertaking to buy back 442 lakh equity shares of MCX-SX (a group company of La-Fin) from IL&FS in August 2012 was time-barred being beyond the period of three-years mentioned in Article 137 of the Limitation Act and could not therefore be proceeded with any further.
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) was equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as substitution of functionaries (CMM as CJM) qua the administrative and executive or so to say non-judicial functions discharged by them in light of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, would not be inconsistent with Section 14 of the 2002 Act.
M/s. Canara Nidhi Limited Vs M. Shashikala And Others (Supreme Court) Conclusion: Since proceedings under Section 34 were summary proceedings and was not in the nature of a regular suit and in the arbitration proceedings, the parties had sufficient opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence, therefore, there was no necessity of adducing fresh evidence […]
M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab & Others (Supreme Court) In this case Supreme Court reversed the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PSPCL ltd Vs state of Punjab wherein the HC had held that appellate authority can in appropriate cases reduce or waive 25% of pre-deposit u/s […]
The legal heirs, in such a case, are neither liable to pay the fine or to undergo imprisonment. However, they have a right to challenge the conviction of their predecessor only for the purpose that he was not guilty of any offence.
NCLT reached the conclusion that since the limitation period was 12 years from the date on which the money suit has become due, the aforesaid claim was filed within limitation and hence admitted the Section 7 application. The NCLAT vide the impugned judgment held, following its earlier judgments, that the time of limitation would begin running for the purposes of limitation only on and from 01.12.2016 which is the date on which the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was brought into force. Consequently, it dismissed the appeal.
ITC Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Supreme Court) As the order of self assessment is nonetheless an assessment order passed under the Act, obviously it would be appealable by any person aggrieved thereby. The expression ‘Any person’ is of wider amplitude. The revenue, as well as assessee, can also prefer an appeal aggrieved by […]
Raja Ram Vs Jai Prakash Singh and Others (Supreme Court) The deceased undisputedly was over 80 years and above in age. The plaintiff pleaded that by reason of age and sickness, the deceased was unable to move and walk, with deteriorated eye sight due to cataract. The mental capacity of the deceased was impaired. The […]
