Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The case involved a dispute over the writ jurisdiction of the High Court post privatization of (AIL) by a private corporate entity. - Erstwhile Public sector undertaking (PSU) - The issue was whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction over a private entity. The employee-writ petitioner argued that the petition was maintainable against the respondent at the time of filing. Various High Courts had held that a government company becoming a private entity would make it immune from writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not issue a writ to a private entity that had taken over during the pendency of the case. The delay in disposal of the writ petitions was considered a valid ground to continue the case, but the appellants were directed to seek remedy from another forum. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Bombay High Court to deny equitable relief and require the appellants to approach the appropriate forum for their grievances.
The case involved a dispute over the writ jurisdiction of the High Court post privatization of (AIL) by a private corporate entity. - Erstwhile Public sector undertaking (PSU) - The issue was whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction over a private entity. The employee-writ petitioner argued that the petition was maintainable against the respondent at the time of filing. Various High Courts had held that a government company becoming a private entity would make it immune from writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not issue a writ to a private entity that had taken over during the pendency of the case. The delay in disposal of the writ petitions was considered a valid ground to continue the case, but the appellants were directed to seek remedy from another forum. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Bombay High Court to deny equitable relief and require the appellants to approach the appropriate forum for their grievances.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
