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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
SC held that Respondent No. 1 breached multiple contractual obligations in the allotment agreement, including failure to secure statutory approvals and execute sub-lease documents. The court ordered Respondent No. 1 to refund Rs. 28,11,31,939 to the Appellant. However, due to the Appellant's questionable conduct and violation of the "clean hands" doctrine, the court denied any additional interest on the refunded amount. The impugned High Court judgment was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of, with Respondent No. 1 directed to refund the first installment without interest.
SC held that Respondent No. 1 breached multiple contractual obligations in the allotment agreement, including failure to secure statutory approvals and execute sub-lease documents. The court ordered Respondent No. 1 to refund Rs. 28,11,31,939 to the Appellant. However, due to the Appellant's questionable conduct and violation of the "clean hands" doctrine, the court denied any additional interest on the refunded amount. The impugned High Court judgment was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of, with Respondent No. 1 directed to refund the first installment without interest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
