Search Results for "Appellate Tribunal"

Trending :

High Court Dismisses Civil Revision Application Challenging Rejection of Plaint ...
Supreme Court Allows Subsidy Claim Under National Horticulture Board Scheme Due ...
Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Illegal Sand Mining Case Involving Wi...
Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order in Eviction Case and Remands to Trial ...
Supreme Court Quashes Charge Against Accused in Abetment of Suicide Case Due to ...

Search Results for "Appellate Tribunal"

303 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 303 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Holds Section 15J Factors Illustrative in SEBI Penalty Adjudication. Adjudicating Officer Retains Discretion to Consider Mitigating Circumstances Beyond Stipulated Factors Under SEBI Act.

28 Feb 2019

The Supreme Court of India adjudicated a reference arising from multiple civil appeals concerning the interpretation of Section 15J of the Securities ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Remands Revenue's Appeal to High Court for Lack of Reasoning and Failure to Frame Substantial Questions of Law Under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court's order dismissing the appeal without assigning reasons or framing substantial questions of law was set aside as legally unsustainable.

27 Feb 2019

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which had dismissed the...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Telecom Dispute Over Quantum Meruit Claim Under Section 70 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Contractual Relationship Bars Quantum Meruit Recovery. The Court held that where parties are governed by an express contract, a claim under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is not permissible, as the section applies only in the absence of a contractual relationship.

27 Feb 2019

The appeal arose from a dispute under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, between Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (appellant) and Tata...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Rejects Plaint in Gift Deed Challenge Due to Limitation Bar. Registered Gift Deed Executed in 1981 Challenged After 22 Years; Suit Held Barred by Article 59 of Limitation Act, 1963.

26 Feb 2019

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the original defendant, Raghwendra Sharan Singh, against the judgment of the Patna High Court which had ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Carrying Cost in Change in Law Claims Under PPA — Restitutionary Principle Upheld. Article 13.2 of Power Purchase Agreement Entitles Generating Company to Carrying Cost from Date of Change in Law Till Approval.

25 Feb 2019

The case involves appeals by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Haryana Discoms) and Gujarat Urja Vika...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from that of the manufacturer, and the benefit of the second proviso (duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B(1) Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) is distinct from the manufacturer's right, and the benefit of the second proviso (waiver of limitation for duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central exci...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim in Central Excise Duty Case — Limitation Period Applies Separately to Buyer. The Court held that the period of limitation of six months under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to a buyer's refund claim even if the manufacturer paid duty under protest, as the rights of manufacturer and buyer are distinct.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the appellant/buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise dut...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The Court held that the buyer's refund claim is time-barred as it was filed beyond six months from the date of purchase, and the manufacturer's protest does not extend the limitation for the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Central Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from that of the manufacturer, and the benefit of the second proviso (duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

27 28 29 30 31

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)