Tax Management India. Com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Indian Laws - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 10861 Records

  • 2018 (4) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Competition Commission of India Versus Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. & Anr.

    Penalty u/s 43A of the Competition Act, 2002 - noncompliance of provisions contained in section 6(2) of the Act - notification of various transactions. - Held that - Once a particular transaction or a series of transactions falls within the purview of combination, it is obligatory to report the same to the Commission under section 6 of the Act - Section 6 (2) makes it clear that no combination shall come into effect until 210 days have elapsed fr....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 917 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    SCM Solifert Limited & Anr. Versus Competition Commission of India

    Penalty u/s 43A of Competition Act, 2002 - Failure to notify a proposed combination as required under section 6(2) of Competition Act, 2002 - notification of acquisition of shares - Held that - Section 42 of the Act deals with contravention of the orders of the Commission. Section 43A deals with the power to impose a penalty for nonfurnishing of information on combinations. Any person or enterprise who fails to give notice under section 6(2) of t....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 916 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Competition Commission of India Versus M/s Fast Way Transmission Pvt. Ltd. And ORS.

    Functions under the Competition Act, 2002 - whether there is an abuse of such dominant position under Section 4(2)(c) where the respondent could be stated to have indulged in a practice resulting in denial of market access in any manner? - Held that - It can be seen that in the facts of the case, the broadcaster, namely respondent No. 5, had a broadcast agreement which was entered into for a period of one year from 1stAugust, 2010. This was sough....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 915 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Sukrita Bajaj & Anr. Versus Sundeep @ Sandeep Sehgal

    Recovery of outstanding dues which were admitted - cancellation of conditional bail - misappropraition of shares - The defendant s only plea is that due to cancellation of conditional bail, MOU dated 03.04.2013 executed between the parties became null and void and its terms and conditions cannot be enforced - Held that - When the defendant did not comply with the terms and conditions of the MOU executed before the court, the plaintiffs were withi....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 851 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. And Anr. Versus Ansaldo Energia Spa And Anr.

    Validity of Arbitral Award - award pertaining to Bank Guarantees and the amounts specified in Exhibit- GG of the Claim Petition - Refurbishment of Thermal Power Plant - termination of contract - violation of a fundamental condition of the Contract i.e. non-furnishing of a Letter of Comfort from the Power Finance Corporation as provided in Clause 5.6 of the Onshore Supply Contract - misrepresentation of the warranty contained in Clause 19.2 (vii) ....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 781 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    IBI Consultancy India Private Limited Versus DSC Limited

    Appointment of an Arbitrator - Section 11(6) read with Section 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - existence of arbitration clause in the contract - Held that - the letter dated 14.06.2010 is a part of the Contract and it shall be read and construed as an integral part of the Contract. Therefore, the contention of the respondent-Company that there does not exist any arbitration agreement between the parties is not sustainable in....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 780 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Premier Texto Trade Pvt Ltd., Ashwani Dewan S/o Late Ved Prakash Dewan Versus Tax Recovery Officer, Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited And Vice-Versa

    Recovery proceedings - lease rights were not transferred in favour of the petitioner - attachment of immovable property of a defaulter - sale aftr expiry of three years - Held that - Provisions show that under Section u/s 68B if the sale is not executed within a period of three years after the attachment, the same shall be deemed to have been vacated. Rule 48 mentions attachment of immovable property of a defaulter prohibiting the defaulter from ....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 717 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Sr. V.J. Dhanapal Versus Union Bank of India, Bangalore, Smt. S. Manjula And Mr. Shravan Kumar

    E-auction - main contention of the writ petitioner is that Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 are mandatory and that in no circumstances, the same can be ignored - Held that - Merely because the petitioner has committed default in payment and even taking it for granted that there was dilatory tactics, in repayment, and that the borrower has been litigating, by filing applications before the Tribunal, the same are not ....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 679 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. LRs. Versus Baldev Raj Walia & Anr.

    Suit for specific performance of the agreement - Respondent No.2 i.e. the alleged subsequent purchaser filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code to become a party (defendant) in the suit - it was alleged that the suit in question (specific performance of agreement) is hit by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code because the relief of specific performance, which is claimed in the present suit could be and ought to have been cla....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 678 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    M/s Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. Versus M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.

    Arbitration award - waiver of the right of de novo trial by conduct - the conduct of the appellant-Company amounts to waiver or not - Whether an Umpire has to hear the matter de novo on a Reference or from the stage of disagreement between the Arbitrators? - Held that - the word de novo hearing should be given a purposive interpretation and it should be understood as a fresh hearing of the matter on the basis of pleadings, evidence and documents ....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 677 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Sri Sivalaya Advances, Jegadish Auto Finance, Madura Auto Finance, Sri Sadasivam Combines Versus Tax Recovery Officer

    Lifting of Attachment of properties - Jurisdiction of Tax Recovery Officer - Held that - it is evident from the face of the record and it is again not in dispute that notice under Rule 2 of second schedule was served on the defaulter on 05.01.2013 and that the sale transactions executed by the said defaulter-assessee took place thereafter. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it would not be open to the purchasers to claim the benefit of the....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 620 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    M/s. Liugong India Pvt. Ltd. Versus State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors

    Application for revival/restoration of complaint - territorial Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - dishonor of cheques. - Held that - Admittedly the cheques in question are issued by the accused drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Basant Lok, New Delhi and thus did not fall within the jurisdiction of the South East District, Saket on the date when the complaint was returned on 14.05.2015. - In terms of the amendment to The N....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 546 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Mohammed Yunus Son of Shri Mohd Hanif Versus The State of Rajasthan, Shri Shivraj Garg Son of Suresh Chandra Garg, C/o Bheru Lal Khatik

    Revision petition - Compounding of offence - offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - dishonor of certain cheques for insufficiency of funds - case of Revenue is that although offence under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable but after verdict of learned appellate Court, it may not be appropriate to grant indulgence to the petitioner - whether revisional powers can be exercised by this Court to compound the offence u....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 485 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Hasmukh Tarachand Sheth & Ors. Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr.

    Validity of FIR - main contention of the Petitioners is that, this being a transaction which is purely civil in nature, the Respondent No.2 could not have lodged the FIR. In the FIR, there is no mention of any of the pending proceedings. - Held that - the present FIR does not pertain to a purely civil transaction. The false representation and inducement is very clear from the email sent to the Respondent No.2 for placing the purchase order for tr....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 423 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. M.R.M. Ramaiya Enterprises Private Limited Versus The District Collector, Assistant Director of Geology and Mines, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, Thoothukudi Taluk Office, Superintendent of Police, District Collector, Assistant Director of Geology and Mines, V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust and Union of India

    Import of sand/river sand - licence, permit, transport slip, etc., under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 - N/N. 97 (RE-2013)/2009-2014 - the petitioner failed to prove that the river sand imported by the petitioner does not contain any metal as prescribed under Chapter 26 and hence, the same has to be chemically analysed to ensure that it does not contain any hazards or heavy metals, etc., in public interest. - Held that - the....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 420 - PATNA HIGH COURT

    Minaj Hussain @ Meer Minaj Ahmad @ Meer Minaj Hussain Son of Meer Irfan Ali Versus The State of Bihar, Rajeev Upadhyay, Son of Late Ramashankar Upadhyay

    Territorial jurisdiction - dishonor of cheque - the aforesaid cheques issued by the petitioner/accused were deposited/presented for encashment at Bhagalpur which gave the sole jurisdiction to a competent Court at Bhagalpur to try the case - Held that - since the cheques in question in the case in hand were presented at Bhagalpur in the bank account of O.P. No. 2, only the Court at Bhagalpur shall have the jurisdiction to try the instant complaint....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 419 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    K. Sheshadrivashu and 3 others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another

    Mis-utilization of cheques issued - sub-contract - the proceeding has been challenged here on the ground that prima-facie there is no material to take cognizance against the petitioners with regard to commission of aforesaid offences - it is contended that this is purely a civil dispute - Held that - the substance of the grievance is that the cheque book was given after signature with a specific direction to use with regard to payment if required....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 377 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Shiv Shakti Metal Works, and M/s. R.K. Industries Versus M/s. Thukral Steel Corp.

    Legality and correctness of judgments dated 30.10.2017 - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act - Issuance of Cheque as security - Held that - It has come on record that the respondent was in possession of relevant documents and had offered to produce them if so required. The petitioners did not insist for production of those documents. Adverse inference is to be drawn against the petitioners for not insisting for the production of those document....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 302 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Avdesh Gupta Versus Satish Sharma & Anr.

    Cheque bounced - validity of cheque - Repayment of loan - Since the defence was that the amount had been repaid, the onus was on Respondent No. 1 to prove by cogent evidence that he had re-paid the loan amount sum to the petitioner and there was no legally recoverable debt when the subject cheques were presented for encashment - complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - Neither any document nor any independent wi....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 231 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Mrs. Patcharut Punsakon Versus State Rep. by The Intelligence Officer, Customs House

    Smuggling - Heroin - Section 50 of The NDPS Act - offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c), 28 and 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of The Customs Act. - Held that - The Apex Court has time and again held that once a physical possession of the contraband by the accused has been established, the onus is upon the accused to prove that it was not a conscious possession. Thus, the onus would be upo....... + More


1........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version