Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
