Search Results for "opportunity of hearing"

Trending :

Search Results for "opportunity of hearing"

183 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 183 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside Revisional Order Passed Without Hearing Accused in Complaint Case — Right of Hearing Under Section 401(2) CrPC Upheld. The Court held that the accused is entitled to be heard in a revision against dismissal of complaint under Section 203 CrPC, and the revisional court cannot direct further inquiry without hearing the accused.

18 Jun 2020

The appellant, Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh, was an accused in a complaint case filed by respondent no.1, Satish Atmaram Talekar, before the Special Metr...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Food Adulteration Case: Remand Order Set Aside for Violation of Natural Justice. High Court's order setting aside conviction and ordering retrial against company without notice violates Section 401(2) CrPC.

1 Jan 2020

The Supreme Court allowed two appeals arising from a High Court order that set aside the conviction of a nominated officer of Hindustan Unilever Limit...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Arbitration Appointment Dispute — High Court Erred in Applying Amended Act and Appointing Independent Arbitrator Without Adhering to Mutually Agreed Procedure. The Court held that pre-amended provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 apply to arbitration requests received before 23rd October, 2015, and the High Court must respect the agreed appointment procedure.

29 Mar 2019

The Supreme Court considered a batch of appeals arising from orders of the Rajasthan High Court appointing independent arbitrators under Section 11(6)...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Arbitration Appointment Dispute — Pre-Amendment Act Applies; No Claim Certificate Does Not Bar Arbitration; Mutually Agreed Procedure Must Be Respected

29 Mar 2019

The Supreme Court heard a batch of appeals arising from orders of the Rajasthan High Court appointing independent arbitrators under Section 11(6) of t...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Arbitration Appointment Dispute — High Court Erred in Applying Amended Act and Appointing Independent Arbitrator Without Adhering to Mutually Agreed Procedure. The Court held that where requests for arbitration were made before the Amendment Act, 2015 came into force, the pre-amended provisions apply, and the High Court must respect the agreed procedure for appointment of arbitrator under Clause 64(3) of GCC.

29 Mar 2019

The Supreme Court considered a batch of appeals arising from orders of the Rajasthan High Court appointing independent arbitrators under Section 11(6)...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Arbitration Appointment Dispute — High Court Erred in Applying Amended Act and Appointing Independent Arbitrator Without Adhering to Mutually Agreed Procedure. The Court held that where parties have agreed on a procedure for appointment of arbitrator, the court must respect it unless bias or failure is shown.

29 Mar 2019

The Supreme Court heard a batch of appeals arising from orders of the Rajasthan High Court appointing independent arbitrators under Section 11(6) of t...

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 ...

15 16 17 18 19

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