Search Results for "refundable amount"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Claimant in Motor Accident Case — Functional Di...
Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Forgery Case Due to Long Pendency and No Crim...
Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Concurrent Findi...
High Court of Bombay at Bombay Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Acc...

Search Results for "refundable amount"

153 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 153 result(s)

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Allows Liquidator's Appeal, Upholds Forfeiture of EMD and PDM for Default by Successful Bidder in Liquidation Sale. Writ Petitioner's Failure to Pay Balance Sale Consideration Within Stipulated Time Justified Forfeiture Under IBC Regulations.

12 Dec 2025

The appellant, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Liquidator of M/s Samrudhi Realty Ltd., appealed against an order dated 12.12.2024 passed by a learned Single Ju...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Considers Whether Refund Claim Under Customs Act Requires Appeal Against Assessment Order. Self-Assessment Under Section 17 and Amendment to Section 27 by Finance Act 2011 Examined.

18 Sep 2019

The Supreme Court heard a batch of appeals filed by assessees and the Union of India against judgments of various High Courts and the Customs, Excise ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Promoter's Appeal in Real Estate Regulation Case, Upholding Authority's Jurisdiction and Pre-deposit Condition. The court affirmed that a single member of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority has jurisdiction to order refunds under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, and the pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) is valid for statutory appeals.

11 Nov 2021

The dispute arose from appeals filed by promoters and real estate developers against orders of the High Court of Allahabad, which had dismissed their ...

Supreme Court

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.

1 Jan 2020

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

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Pension Benefits to Retired Bank Employee Despite Delay in Deposit of Contribution Amount Under Joint Note Dated 27 April 2010. The court held that the three-day period for deposit was unreasonable and that the petitioner's substantial compliance warranted granting pension.

18 Aug 2016

The petitioner, Ramesh Gajanan Nigudkar, joined the Bank of Baroda as a subordinate staff member on 4 March 1967 and retired after 39 years of unblemi...

High Court

High Court of Bombay Allows Pension Benefits to Retired Bank Employee Despite Delay in Deposit of Amount Under Joint Note. The court held that the three-day condition imposed by the bank was arbitrary and unreasonable, and that the petitioner's substantive right to pension could not be defeated by a procedural technicality.

18 Aug 2016

The petitioner, Ramesh Gajanan Nigudkar, joined the Bank of Baroda as a subordinate staff member on 4 March 1967 and retired after 39 years of unblemi...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Summary Judgment in Security Deposit Recovery Suit — Triable Issues Raised on Forfeiture Clause and Interest Claim. Leave and Licence Agreement's Clause 14(c) Permitting Forfeiture of Deposit for Overstay Creates Triable Issue, Precluding Summary Judgment Under Order 37 CPC.

21 Mar 2006

The plaintiff, RMC Readymix (I) P.ltd, filed a summary suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the defendant, Kanayo Khubcha...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Interprets Pre-Deposit Requirement Under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act in Appeals by Borrowers and Secured Creditors. The court held that pre-deposit is mandatory, computed based on the amount claimed in the notice under Section 13(2), excluding future interest, with adjustments for recoveries after filing the petition under Section 17.

23 Apr 2025

The Supreme Court of India, in a group of appeals, addressed the interpretation of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial As...

High Court

Court Directs Cash Refund: Writ Petitions Grant Relief on CENVAT Credit. Judgement rules in favor of petitioners, mandates cash refund under Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 for excess duty payments.

10 Jun 2024

Writ Petition Outcome captures the essence of the court's decision to grant relief based on the interpretation of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Employee Compensation Case — Interim Payment Not Deductible from Final Compensation Under Section 8(1) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Court holds that interim compensation voluntarily paid by employer cannot be deducted from the amount deposited under Section 8(1) as the Act does not provide for such deduction.

26 Sep 2013

The appeal was filed by the parents of Miss Sujata Siddharth Survase, who died in the Mangalore air crash on 22 May 2010 while working as a crew membe...

1 2 3 4 5

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