Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Dispute concerns recovery of funds erroneously transferred to a wrong beneficiary account and the applicability of CGST/WBGST provisions. HC examined bank report, affidavit of the added respondent and Ombudsman order, found transfer resulted from payers mistake (account digits mismatched) and that the unintended recipient disavowed any commercial relationship and consented to return the funds; consequently the bank was directed to credit the amount back to the payers account within one week. The operative effect is mandatory restitution of the mistakenly transferred amount by the bank to the payer.
Dispute concerns recovery of funds erroneously transferred to a wrong beneficiary account and the applicability of CGST/WBGST provisions. HC examined bank report, affidavit of the added respondent and Ombudsman order, found transfer resulted from payers mistake (account digits mismatched) and that the unintended recipient disavowed any commercial relationship and consented to return the funds; consequently the bank was directed to credit the amount back to the payers account within one week. The operative effect is mandatory restitution of the mistakenly transferred amount by the bank to the payer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.