https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110964 Security charges for safeguarding a ship-breaking plot were found excessive because the claimed deployment of 15 guards, 3 supervisors and 1 security officer was unsupported by contemporaneous justification, prior sanction, or proper records. The Court considered the limited size and nature of the plot under the Gujarat Maritime Board regime and accepted that one guard per shift would be sufficient for protection. As a result, the claim for security supervisors and the security officer was rejected, and recovery was confined to one-fifth of the claimed security-guard charges. en-us Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:56:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110964 Security charges for safeguarding a ship-breaking plot were found excessive because the claimed deployment of 15 guards, 3 supervisors and 1 security officer was unsupported by contemporaneous justification, prior sanction, or proper records. The Court considered the limited size and nature of the plot under the Gujarat Maritime Board regime and accepted that one guard per shift would be sufficient for protection. As a result, the claim for security supervisors and the security officer was rejected, and recovery was confined to one-fifth of the claimed security-guard charges. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110964