Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Developer directed to refund apartment booking amount exceeding 10% of Basic Sale Price (BSP) without interest to purchaser following cancellation. SC upheld NCDRC's determination that 10% BSP constitutes reasonable earnest money forfeiture, finding original agreement terms unconscionable and one-sided. Court applied precedent requiring clear, explicit contract terms to justify earnest money forfeiture, distinguishing between earnest money deposits and consideration payments. Ruling emphasized that unfair contract terms between parties with unequal bargaining power are unenforceable under Article 14. While forfeiture of reasonable earnest money falls outside Section 74 of Contract Act, penalty-nature forfeitures remain subject to statutory limitations. Appeal partially allowed, modifying interest component while maintaining principal forfeiture limit.
Developer directed to refund apartment booking amount exceeding 10% of Basic Sale Price (BSP) without interest to purchaser following cancellation. SC upheld NCDRC's determination that 10% BSP constitutes reasonable earnest money forfeiture, finding original agreement terms unconscionable and one-sided. Court applied precedent requiring clear, explicit contract terms to justify earnest money forfeiture, distinguishing between earnest money deposits and consideration payments. Ruling emphasized that unfair contract terms between parties with unequal bargaining power are unenforceable under Article 14. While forfeiture of reasonable earnest money falls outside Section 74 of Contract Act, penalty-nature forfeitures remain subject to statutory limitations. Appeal partially allowed, modifying interest component while maintaining principal forfeiture limit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
