Search Results for "Distributor"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Hears Appeals Against Madras High Court’s Setting Aside of Alien...
Supreme Court Hears Appeals on Permanent Establishment of Formula One World Cham...

Search Results for "Distributor"

232 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 232 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Amendment of GSTR-1 in GST Case Due to Human Error and No Revenue Loss. Rule of purposive interpretation applied to permit correction of inadvertent reporting of wrong GSTINs under Section 37 of CGST Act, 2017.

14 Dec 2023

The petitioner, Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd., is a company engaged in manufacturing and supplying electronic components to Bajaj Auto Limited (BAL). D...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appointment of Arbitrator in Commercial Dispute Over Unpaid Invoices. Arbitration Agreement Found Valid Through Sales Terms and Conditions on Website and Invoices Accepted by Respondent.

30 Aug 2022

The applicant, Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd., a distributor of computer products, filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Concilia...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Release of Imported Bearings in IPR Suspension Case — Mandamus Issued for Violation of IPR Rules 2007. Customs Authorities Suspended Clearance Without Confiscation Order or Notice Under Rule 7 of IPR Rules, Violating Principles of Natural Justice.

12 Mar 2021

The petitioners, NBU Bearings Pvt. Ltd. and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Petition for Appointment of Arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration Dispute — Seat of Arbitration Determined as Hong Kong Based on Clause 17.2 of MoU.

5 Mar 2020

The petitioner, Mankastu Impex Private Limited, an Indian company, and the respondent, Airvisual Limited, a Hong Kong company, entered into a Memorand...

High Court

Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Suit — KYK Mark and Trade Dress Protected. Leave under Clause XIV of Letters Patent granted to combine causes of action for infringement and passing off.

28 Jan 2020

The plaintiffs, Mohtimbas Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff No.1, an Indian stockist and distributor) and a Taiwanese manufacturer (Plaintiff No.2), fi...

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 ...

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 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(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 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 ...

8 9 10 11 12

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