Search Results for "admitted sum"

5331 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 5331 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Against DRT Order in Debt Recovery Case — Bank Entitled to Recover Debt Under RDB Act. DRT Has Inherent Power to Reject Frivolous Counterclaim Without Recording Evidence, and High Court Should Not Interfere When Alternative Remedy of Appeal Exists.

The case involves two writ petitions arising from proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Fin...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Winding Up Petitions for Non-Compliance with Statutory Notice Under Section 434 of Companies Act, 1956. Statutory notice requirement under Section 434(1)(a) held mandatory and cannot be waived by agreement between parties.

The petitioner, Dolphin Investment Pvt. Ltd., filed two company petitions under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking winding up ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Attachment and Sale of Residential Bungalow in Income Tax Recovery Proceedings. Order Beyond Limitation Period Under Rule 68B(3) of Second Schedule and Non-Compliance with Proclamation Requirements Render Sale Invalid.

The case involved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the attachment and proposed sale of a residential bungalo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Admission of Winding-Up Petition Against Telecom Company Due to Substratum Erosion and Deadlock. Cancellation of 2G Licences and Irreconcilable Differences Between Equal Shareholders Justify Winding-Up Under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956.

The appeal arose from an order of the company judge admitting a petition for winding up of Etisalat D.B. Telecom Limited (the company) under Section 4...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Taxpayer Against Non-Processing of Income Tax Returns and Refund Claims. Mandamus Issued to Process Returns Under Section 143(1) Within Four Weeks, Subject to Section 143(1D) and Section 241A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The appellant, Vodafone Idea Ltd. (formerly Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd), is a telecommunications company that filed income tax returns for Assessmen...