Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The original appellant (now deceased) was represented by her son as her legal representative. The suit initially sought a permanent prohibitory injunction regarding a property, asserting her exclusive ownership and possession against the defendants, who are other family members. - Upon the death of the original appellant, her son sought to substitute himself as the appellant, claiming inheritance rights. - The Court noted the difference in scenarios where the plaintiff versus the defendant dies. While an injunction becomes moot if a defendant dies (since it cannot bind the heirs unless explicitly directed), the same does not apply when a plaintiff dies. - The High Court held that the cause of action for an injunction does not necessarily die with the plaintiff. If the legal heirs can establish a legitimate claim to the property, they may continue to seek injunctions to protect their possession.
The original appellant (now deceased) was represented by her son as her legal representative. The suit initially sought a permanent prohibitory injunction regarding a property, asserting her exclusive ownership and possession against the defendants, who are other family members. - Upon the death of the original appellant, her son sought to substitute himself as the appellant, claiming inheritance rights. - The Court noted the difference in scenarios where the plaintiff versus the defendant dies. While an injunction becomes moot if a defendant dies (since it cannot bind the heirs unless explicitly directed), the same does not apply when a plaintiff dies. - The High Court held that the cause of action for an injunction does not necessarily die with the plaintiff. If the legal heirs can establish a legitimate claim to the property, they may continue to seek injunctions to protect their possession.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.