Corporate Archives - Page 26 of 27 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

Confiscation of vehicle—Truck used for transportation of wheat—Whether there was any valid paper regarding possession of wheat was not subject matter of confiscation proceeding—Vehicle released.

Apr 14, 2017 sclaw

2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1670 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Criminal Appeal No. 659 of…

Corporate

Noise Pollution—Manufacturing of brass utensils in residential area—Permission granted to give concrete proposal as to how would they abide by norms.

Apr 14, 2017 sclaw

2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1638 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Civil Appeal No. 4533…

Corporate

Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959 – Section 8 – Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 – Rule 7(2) – Loss of IVPs – Replacement – An IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note

Apr 9, 2017 sclaw

AIR 2006 SC 1744 : (2006) 131 CompCas 369 : (2006) 2 CTC 668 : (2006) 4 JT 367 : (2006) 4 SCALE 143 : (2006) 4 SCC 275…

Corporate

The duty of excise is a tax on the manufacturer and not a tax on the profits made by a dealer on transportation – Appeal allowed.

Apr 9, 2017 sclaw

(1997) 94 ELT 13 : (1997) 11 SCC 697 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BARODA ELECTRIC METERS LTD. — Appellant Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE — Respondent ( Before :…

Corporate

Detention—Non consideration of representation renders further detention illegal but does not render initial order void ab initio.

Apr 9, 2017 sclaw

2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1121 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. K. Sema The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy Criminal Appeal No.…

Corporate Limitation

Common Carrier—Non delivery of consignment—No liability to pay freight charges—Entire cost of consignment to be paid by carrier.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1020 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran Civil Appeal No. 3096…

Corporate

Banking Law—Loan recovery—Recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles could be done only through legal means — Banks cannot employ goondas to take possession by force—Reason and Suggestions enumerated.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 986 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Justice A.R. Lakshmanan The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2007…

Corporate

Whether withdrawal of O.A. in terms of the first proviso to Section 19(1) of the DRT Act, 1993 is a condition precedent to taking recourse to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ? NO. Whether ad valorem Court fee prescribed under Rule 7 of the 1993 is payable on an application of the NPA Act in the absence of any rule framed under NPA Act ? Yes. Whether recourse to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower in terms of Section 13(4) of the NPA Act comprehends the power to take actual possession of the immovable property.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 927 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Civil Appeal No. 3228 of…

Corporate

Dishonour of Cheque–Offence by Company–Director of company should not automatically be vicariously liable for commission of an offence–There should be sufficient averments to show that the person who is sought to be proceeded against on the premise of his being vicariously liable for commission of an offence by the Company must be incharge and shall also be responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business.

Apr 8, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 909 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2002…

Corporate

Deficiency of Service—Delay in giving delivery of possession of flat—Refund of amount—No hard and fast rule about rate of interest thereon. Interest—Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital.

Apr 7, 2017 sclaw

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 714 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 1598 of…

Confiscation of vehicle—Truck used for transportation of wheat—Whether there was any valid paper regarding possession of wheat was not subject matter of confiscation proceeding—Vehicle released.

Noise Pollution—Manufacturing of brass utensils in residential area—Permission granted to give concrete proposal as to how would they abide by norms.

Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959 – Section 8 – Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 – Rule 7(2) – Loss of IVPs – Replacement – An IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note

The duty of excise is a tax on the manufacturer and not a tax on the profits made by a dealer on transportation – Appeal allowed.

Detention—Non consideration of representation renders further detention illegal but does not render initial order void ab initio.

Common Carrier—Non delivery of consignment—No liability to pay freight charges—Entire cost of consignment to be paid by carrier.

Banking Law—Loan recovery—Recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles could be done only through legal means — Banks cannot employ goondas to take possession by force—Reason and Suggestions enumerated.

Deficiency of Service—Delay in giving delivery of possession of flat—Refund of amount—No hard and fast rule about rate of interest thereon. Interest—Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital.

You missed

A suit in representative capacity (Order 1, Rule 8 CPC) is not maintainable if lacking locus standi, and a prior decree (res judicata) bars subsequent suits on the same subject matter, notwithstanding varying reliefs.

Agreement to sell immovable property incurs stamp duty as deemed conveyance via implied/symbolic possession transfer, with duty applying to the agreement (instrument), not the sale (transaction).

In child custody cases, the lawpoint is that the welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration, and a Habeas Corpus writ petition is maintainable only when the child’s detention is proven illegal or without legal authority

Supreme Court of India Judgements

Category: Corporate

You missed