“The respondent, having failed to lodge its claim, cannot enforce the impugned orders and notices, given the binding nature of the approved Resolution Plan.”
Bombay High Court observed that the ship was guarded by the applicant on the guidance of Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai and there is no reason why the Official Liquidator shall later drag its feet in disbursing the amount as per the invoice which has been already declared genuine.
A pre-deposit does not partake the character of a tax or duty. Those are sums which are deposited by an assessed solely for the purposes of pursuing the remedy of appeal.
The Supreme Court called the matter at hand a classic case in which a litigant had been able to mislead the Courts and authorities at different levels to put life into his stale claim.
To assist the Nodal Officer, minimum secretarial staff shall be provided by the State Government.
Delhi High Court observed that the MSMED Act, 2006 has been enacted for the purpose of extending benefits to Suppliers, who are registered under the Act as Micro or Small Enterprises, it does not contemplate the reverse obligation i.e. claims relating to the amount recoverable from the Suppliers under the MSMED Act, 2006.
The impugned arbitral award was passed without considering the clauses of the Concessionaire Agreement while adjudicating on the rate of interest to be granted, thus, suffers from infirmity and patent illegality.
The Manipur High Court held that the appropriate multiplier for deceased, aged 35 years should be 16 in place of 17 for calculation of compensation in cases under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
An arbitration agreement that is embedded within a contract would always be considered as a separate and severable clause, and despite a reference being made by the court the arbitrator is free to decide on their jurisdiction including the existence of the arbitration agreement in accordance with the kompetenz-kompetenz principle
The Central Board of Direct Taxes has notified Income-tax (26th Amendment) Rules, 2022 to amend Income-tax Rules, 1962. The amendment
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., reversed concurrent findings of the Arbitral Tribunal and the Delhi
National Company Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai: The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., Chairperson, M. Satyanarayana Murthy, Judicial Member, and Naresh Salecha, Technical member
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi: The Coram of Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) and Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial Member) allowed
Supreme Court: While deciding an almost three decade long commercial dispute relating to Arakonam Naval Air Station, the 3-Judge Bench comprising of
Bombay High Court: Expressing that, Negligence does not always mean absolute carelessness, but want of such a degree of care as required
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 4
Jharkhand High Court: S.N.Pathak, J., held that the employees of Telco Recreation Club cannot claim parity in pay and other benefits at
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana: Justice MSK Jaiswal (President) and Meena Ramanathan (Member) upheld the District Commission’s Order observing the consequence
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Dinesh Singh (Presiding Member) while addressing the instant first appeal upheld the State Commission’s Order in
Bombay High Court: R.I. Chagla, J., while addressing a matter held that, “Cause of action in rem does not merge with the Order