Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking an order to require the defendants to secure an amount of Rs. 1,14,88,833/- until the disposal of the suit. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case against the defendants to demonstrate that they were attempting to dispose of or remove movable or immovable properties from the Court's jurisdiction to prevent the plaintiffs from realizing any decretal amount that may be awarded in the future. The Court found that the plaintiffs merely made a bald statement about apprehending the defendants' potential actions, without providing any supporting documents. The dispute over the principal amount of Rs. 77,05,223/- claimed by the plaintiffs, along with interest at 18% per annum, and the defendants' defense of having returned goods worth Rs. 55,24,252/- to the plaintiff company, remains a matter for trial.
The High Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking an order to require the defendants to secure an amount of Rs. 1,14,88,833/- until the disposal of the suit. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case against the defendants to demonstrate that they were attempting to dispose of or remove movable or immovable properties from the Court's jurisdiction to prevent the plaintiffs from realizing any decretal amount that may be awarded in the future. The Court found that the plaintiffs merely made a bald statement about apprehending the defendants' potential actions, without providing any supporting documents. The dispute over the principal amount of Rs. 77,05,223/- claimed by the plaintiffs, along with interest at 18% per annum, and the defendants' defense of having returned goods worth Rs. 55,24,252/- to the plaintiff company, remains a matter for trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
