Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
