Supreme Court said that a deviation from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves business efficacy better
“Special rules of jurisdiction laid down by the Brussels I bis Regulation are to be interpreted strictly and do not permit an interpretation which goes beyond the cases expressly envisaged by that regulation.”
Supreme Court, while going by the ordinary meaning of ‘commercial purpose’, said that ‘Commercial’ denotes “pertaining to commerce”. However, the Explanation clarifies that even purchases in certain situations for ‘commercial purposes’ would not take within its sweep the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’
Supreme Court held that not putting a quietus to the prolonged dispute at hand, spanning 38 years, on something as simple as tenancy issue, would be a travesty of justice.
The High Court quashed the GST notice of Rs 21,000 crores issued to Gameskraft holding it to be arbitrary and did a detailed analysis of various nuances of ‘game of chance’ and ‘game of skill’.
Supreme Court’s full bench declared the judgments in Arup Bhuyan, Indra Das and Raneef to be bad in law. Also, the High Courts Judgments which followed these precedents were overruled
The Supreme Court was hearing the case where a manufacturer was earlier manufacturing “Spun Line Crown Cork” used for sealing the glass bottles but now with the use of modern technologies, was manufacturing “Double Lip Dry Blend Crowns”, also used for sealing the glass bottles.
The Court was called upon to decide as to while calculating the amount to be deposited as predeposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 50% of which amount the borrower is required to deposit as pre-deposit and whether while calculating the amount of “debt due”, the amount deposited by the auction purchaser on purchase of the secured assets is required to be adjusted and/or appropriated towards the amount of pre-deposit to be deposited by the borrower under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
“When the daughter belonging to the non-tribal is entitled to the equal share in the property of the father, there is no
Supreme Court held that the CBEC circular was not contrary to the intent of the Central Excise Act and Rules. Thus, the show cause notice is not defective and unenforceable. However, the order of the Commissioner regarding the value of the goods sold to the Assessee’s sister concerns is in consonance with the Court’s earlier judgments and CBEC Circular.
Karnataka High Court: In the instant petition for quashment, the issue arose that whether a legal heir should be permitted to come
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petition wherein a person’s engagement as Rehbar-e-Khel was cancelled
“The scenario is that any order or judgment passed by this Court becomes a reportable exercise to create more volumes of reported cases! This thus has a possibility at times of causing some confusion on the legal principles prevalent.”
Supreme Court: In a suo motu case initiated to address the question as to whether the provision of pre-sentence hearing in capital
“Merely because a law operates on certain circumstances which are antecedent to its passing does not mean that it is retrospective.”
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJI and Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, JJ has referred the question relating to
Supreme Court: In a case relating to pre-litigation mediation in commercial disputes, the bench of KM Joseph* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has
Supreme Court: The bench of KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has held that the statutory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., reversed concurrent findings of the Arbitral Tribunal and the Delhi
Punajb and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under section 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail under Sections 22, 25,