https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112537 Documentary evidence showing that a vehicle was ordered in the appellant's name, financed by the notified company and delivered under that arrangement justified recovery under section 3 of the Special Court Act, as the transaction was connected with the notified party and the appellant was aware of it. The principal liability to pay the vehicle cost to the Custodian was therefore sustained. However, the interest component was interfered with on the facts, and the award was reduced from 18 per cent to 9 per cent per annum for the relevant period. The recovery direction otherwise remained intact. en-us Tue, 26 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112537 Documentary evidence showing that a vehicle was ordered in the appellant's name, financed by the notified company and delivered under that arrangement justified recovery under section 3 of the Special Court Act, as the transaction was connected with the notified party and the appellant was aware of it. The principal liability to pay the vehicle cost to the Custodian was therefore sustained. However, the interest component was interfered with on the facts, and the award was reduced from 18 per cent to 9 per cent per annum for the relevant period. The recovery direction otherwise remained intact. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 26 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112537