Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Seeking directions against the respondent no. 1/National Housing Bank (NHB) to consider and decide upon the petitioner’s representation - The High Court noted that the petitioner's representation primarily aimed at collecting information to use in litigation before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), rather than seeking redressal of any immediate legal or constitutional rights. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be employed as a means to gather evidence against a party involved in pending disputes. It cited legal precedents to highlight that courts are not forums for roving inquiries or fact-finding missions. Concluding that the petitioner's petition was a misuse and abuse of the court's process, the Court dismissed the petition along with the pending application.
Seeking directions against the respondent no. 1/National Housing Bank (NHB) to consider and decide upon the petitioner’s representation - The High Court noted that the petitioner's representation primarily aimed at collecting information to use in litigation before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), rather than seeking redressal of any immediate legal or constitutional rights. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be employed as a means to gather evidence against a party involved in pending disputes. It cited legal precedents to highlight that courts are not forums for roving inquiries or fact-finding missions. Concluding that the petitioner's petition was a misuse and abuse of the court's process, the Court dismissed the petition along with the pending application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.