Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by the petitioner challenging dismissal order in relation to an application filed seeking
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Extramarks Education India Private Limited (petitioner) seeking appointment of an arbitrator to
“A claim may not be barred by limitation. It is the remedy for realisation of the claim, which gets barred by limitation.”
Supreme Court: In a suit for specific performance the Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., explained the
“The purpose of looking into the records of the lower fora in revision is principally to see whether any jurisdictional error or material irregularity has been committed, which has to be judged by seeing their orders in the light of the evidence and material placed before them i.e., the material which they were privy to when they passed their orders”
Madras High Court: In a case where show cause notices were sent by Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Respondent 4) for short collection
Karnataka High Court and ITAT committed a “grave error” in holding that the requirement of furnishing a declaration under Section 10B (8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) is mandatory, but the time limit within which the declaration is to be filed is not mandatory but is directory.
Supreme Court: In a case where the bench of S. Ravindra Bhat* and PS Narsimha, JJ was posed with the question as
Supreme Court: In a case where the Development Plan was finalized in the year 2002, but the same was never implemented nor
It is the oft-repeated and a salutary principle of law that fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant)
Supreme Court: In a case where the bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ was deciding an issue relating to
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Akil Kureshi CJ and Sudesh Bansal J ranted interim relief and stayed the provisional attachment
National Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Coram of Justice R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) expressed that, when a Statute
Supreme Court: The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that failure on the part of the builder
Supreme Court: In a case relating to Corporate Insolvency, the Division Bench comprising of Indira Banerjee* and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ., quashed the
Supreme Court: After the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association approached the Court in light of the spread of Omicron, the new variant of
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Vishal Dhagat, J. allowed an arbitration appeal against an impugned order passed by the First ADJ of Balaghat
Supreme Court: In a case where the Andhra Pradesh High Court had condoned a delay of 1011 days even though no sufficient
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., held that, “Mere fact that the boundary walls had been built by the defendants cannot be
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Sulekha Beevi C.S., J. (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal wherein the refund was rejected