LAW Judgements

The petitioner by way of the present writ petition challenges the order dated 01st June, 2020 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the respondent have denied refund due to the petitioner in spite of the fact that the petitioner had made exports

The petitioner asserts that the judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by a Division Bench of this Court inCWP No.1551 of 2018, titled Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd.Versus Union of India & others, has been wilfully disobeyedby the respondents, hence, instan

This appeal has been filed challenging thejudgment dated 28.01.2020 of High Court of Judicatureat Allahabad, Lucknow Bench allowing the applicationunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.1. By impugned judgment, High Court has directed forre

In the matter of Mr. Kedarram Ramratan Laddha, Insolvency Professional (IP) under Regulation 11 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016

The Court was held by Video Conference, as per the Resolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respectiveresidences and the counsel, staff of the Court appearing from their respective residences. 2. The Revenue has preferred th

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has been filed against the Impugned Order dated 09.12.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, Court 2) in I.A. 886 of 2020 in CP (I

Heard Mr. Sriram Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. V. A. Sonpal, learned special counsel with Mr. S. B. Gore, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Mr. Mohamedali Chunawala, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred as the Act) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Antidumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rule

Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avinash Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the State-respondents.

Heard Sri A.P. Mathur, counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.K.S. Raghuvansi, counsel for the respondents and perused the record.