Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court stated that modifying or clarifying the judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304 would lend itself to violating the doctrine of immutability, undermining the finality of the decision.
“It is an established legal principle that any administrative action / order does not absolve a party to a valid and subsisting Power Purchase Agreement from discharging its obligation under the PPA.”
The foundation of show cause notice itself was bad in law and the assumption that return could not have been filed in the GST portal of Telangana did not flow from Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Court opined that the husbands/fathers are many times not depositing the arrears of maintenance for years together and they have no fear or burden to pay the interest on that amount of maintenance and this is a serious legal mischief.
The Court said that in the absence of any authority to forfeit the sum deposited in the application or agreement between the petitioner and the respondent, or any statutory provision or circular, renders the respondents disentitled to withhold the amount deposited with them.
Section 129-E of Customs Act, 1962 makes it obligatory to deposit the duty/penalty pending the appeal and if a party does not comply either with the main Section or with any order that might be passed under the proviso, the Appellate Authority is fully competent to reject the appeal for non-compliance.
Calcutta High Court held Arbitrator’s refusal to decide question of interest under the MSMED Act constitutes a “decision” and therefore, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“The decree holder was not required to await the outcome of the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, however, if it did choose to remain under a self-imposed embargo, then it can’t demand interest.”
“A levy of interest on refund must undoubtedly follow where it was found that the amount has been unjustifiably retained or remitted with undue delay and thus, the respondents cannot be permitted to retain moneys which are otherwise not due or are otherwise liable to be returned.”
“The Tribunal provided reasons for the findings delivered, and there was no perversity apparent on the face of the record or which goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the impugned Award could not be said to be patently illegal.”
Allahabad High Court clarified that the decision rendered in Divakar Dwivedi case must apply to all the Judicial Officers, irrespective of the fact that they had not filed writ petitions.
The Manipur High Court held that paucity of funds could not be a ground for denying payment of salaries and therefore, directed the release of salaries due payable for ten years along with interest at 6% per annum.
The Supreme Court observed that taxation depends upon the language of the charging section and what is brought to tax within the four corners of the charging section.
Delhi High Court: In a case filed questioning whether the cumulative sum of Rs. 1,80,10,000/- deposited on behalf of the
Delhi High Court: In a petition filed challenging the vires of Rule 14 of Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT): While deciding the instant appeal wherein the relevant question arose that whether the interest paid on late
Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order
Allahabad High Court: Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. allowed a bail application in a case registered under sections 376, 506 Penal Code, 1860
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Division Coram of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical