The Supreme Court held that failure to issue a Section 21 notice does not invalidate arbitration where parties intended to arbitrate all disputes. The ruling clarifies that Section 21 is procedural, not jurisdictional.
Patna High Court held that judgement of conviction of Tax Assistant for accepting bribe to process income tax refund and order of sentence is justified and legal since the prosecution has proved all core points of prosecution story.
The Supreme Court held that criminal prosecution for bribery can continue where departmental exoneration was based on procedural gaps. The key takeaway is that only a merits-based exoneration destroying the offence can bar prosecution.
The Court held that electricity generated in an SEZ and supplied domestically is not an import under customs law. In the absence of a charging section, the levy was declared unconstitutional and refunds were ordered.
The Supreme Court ruled that withholding mark sheets and degree for a clerical mismatch is unjustified. Universities must correct their errors without harming students’ careers.
The Supreme Court held that extended incarceration without trial commencement breaches the right to life and speedy trial. Statutory bail restrictions cannot justify indefinite custody when proceedings show no real progress.
ITAT Mumbai held that TDS credit duly reflected in Form 26AS cannot be denied just because of some procedural lapse. Accordingly, order is set aside and the present appeal is allowed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that State becomes liable to compensation on account of theft of seized silver and cash which was carried out in the police station. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that supply of electricity by petitioner to Power Trading Corporation of India is not export supply of goods and hence refund is not admissible. However, directed to claim refund of ITC relating to supply of electricity directly to Bangladesh Power Development Board.
NCLAT Delhi held that the contractual grace period did not postpone the “occurrence” of default, it merely gave the debtor additional time to rectify it before triggering the contractual consequences. Thus, application u/s. 7 not being barred by section 10A is rightly admitted.
