Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on sale of joint family property by Karta.
“It is erroneous to suggest that the sale of goods is not chargeable to tax under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, if there is no increase or accretion in the value of goods by the dealer.”
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on limited/absolute interest in property.
“While E-Commerce provide new platforms for small designers and businesses, the same ought not to be misused for the purposes of imitating and producing look alike products thereby violating any intellectual property rights.”
The Gujarat AAR said that the lease deed nowhere suggests that the consideration received by the applicant is related to construction of complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof. Thus, the question of this transaction falling within the ambit of Sl. No. 5(b), Schedule II, does not arise.
It is travesty of justice that an institution contributing for noble cause being that of running a charitable hospital on a public land and providing for sound research and treatment facilities has been made to suffer the rigors of cancellation of the Lease Deed and vacation of the property. Being a constitutional court and the conscience-keeper of the democracy, this Court cannot lend a blind eye when the ends of justice are being bulldozed in broad daylight.
Bombay High Court: In a unique case where the officers exercising powers under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Hemant Gupta* and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ., reversed concurrent findings of Trial Court and Punjab and
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of K.M. Joseph* and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., held that mere writing the word “cancelled” or drawing
Supreme Court: The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that failure on the part of the builder
The Government of Bihar has imposed a complete ban on the manufacture, import, stocking, distribution, sale and use of following single use
Supreme Court: The bench of Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that in order to determine whether a document is
Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of R. Subhash Reddy, M. R. Shah* and Ashok Bhushan, JJ., set aside the order of
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., has set aside the order of High
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Bench of Dinesh Singh (Presiding Member) observed that: “Consumer has the right to know, before
Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Judge Bench of K.M. Joseph and Sharad Kumar Sharma, JJ., had allowed a revision which was filed
Kerala High Court: The Bench of Alexander Thomas, J. hearing a civil writ petition, considered the legal validity of unilateral cancellation of
Madras High Court: Petitioner had approached this Court before a Single Judge Bench of Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J., with a prayer to block
Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Asha Arora, J. dismissed a revisional application filed by the petitioner assailing the