Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Once CIRP initiated any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by Corporate Debtor will be prohibited.

In the instant case, the Appellant has not disputed that there were heavy rains on 29.08.2003 and 30.08.2003 in the Nimbahera region. In fact, the surveyor appointed by the Appellant had also observed in its report that heavy rainfall had occurred in

The Constitution of India provides its citizen some fundamental rights which can be restricted or taken out on through well established law of the land. The Article 21 provides us right of " Personal Liberty" and it is a fundamental right , we have r

The Apex Court rightly upheld upheld the judgement pronounced by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and held that no IGST is payable on ocean freight under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on contracts of Cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) imports of goods

It is a well settled fact that once a disputed liability has shown in the financial statement of a company as outstanding, the limitation period will again begin from the date next to the date of such acknowledgement. It means that the date on which

When 90% or more of the creditors decide that it will be in the interest of all the stake­holders to permit Settlement Plan filed by promoter of the Corporate Debtor and withdraw Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as per Section 12A of the Insol

Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 18th October 2016 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. By t

The AAR, Maharashtra in the matter of Gulf Turbo Solutions LLP [Advance Ruling No. GST- ARA- 101/2019-20/B-53 dated April 27, 2022]has held that assessee providing marketing services to a foreign company and acting as a conduit between a foreign comp

The Apex Court earlier in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harichand Rai Chandan Lal held that that 'theft from the premises by forceful and violently' would mean entry by use of any force, however slight it may be.

Denying the appellant's claim on account of upholding an unfavourable interpretation of an ambiguous term would entail the respondent not performing its duties as a government company.