Search Results for "capital expenditure"

468 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 468 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Employer's Challenge to Industrial Court Award Granting Wage Hike to Workmen Under Section 73(2) of MIR Act. Industrial Court's Findings on Comparable Units and Financial Capacity Upheld as Not Perverse.

The petitioner, M/s Diffusion Engineering Limited, a public limited company operating four manufacturing units, challenged an award dated 15-2-2019 pa...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petition to Refer Dispute to Arbitration in Family Settlement Matter. Dispute regarding implementation of Escrow Agent directions under Indenture of Family Settlement held arbitrable under Sections 5 and 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioners, Basant Lall Shaw and Arbind Kumar Jayaswal, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Substitution of Assignee in Pending DRT Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act. Assignment of debt under Section 5 of SARFAESI Act entitles assignee to continue pending recovery proceedings without fresh filing, and amendment of cause title is permissible.

The petitioner, Alpha and Omega Diagnostics India Ltd., challenged a common order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) which upheld the orde...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Assessee in Income Tax Reference on Section 35B Deduction and Doctrine of Merger. Commissioner Cannot Reopen Allowed Deduction After Appeal Merger Under Income Tax Act, 1961.

The case is an income tax reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising from a dispute between the Commissioner of Income-tax, B...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appointment of Arbitrator in Slum Rehabilitation Dispute Between State of Maharashtra and Developer. Court Holds That Existence of Arbitration Clause and Failure of Respondent to Appoint Arbitrator Justifies Appointment Under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The State of Maharashtra filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to reso...