Search Results for "predominant material"

106 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 106 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Service Tax Classification Dispute. Construction of Shiv Chatrapati Sports Complex Held Not 'Commercial or Industrial Construction' Under Section 65(25b) of Finance Act, 1994.

The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune-III filed an appeal under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order date...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Customs Demand Against Ex-Director for Company Dues — No Personal Liability Without Statutory Provision. Section 142(1)(c)(ii) of Customs Act, 1962 does not authorise recovery from a former director who ceased to be associated with the company before the demand.

The petitioner, Purshottam Das Gupta, an 86-year-old senior citizen, was formerly a director of Sujata Verbatim Limited (later renamed PDG Infotech Li...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Validity of MRTP Act Provisions. Court holds that Sections 49(7) and 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 are constitutionally valid and not ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 21A, 47 and 243(w).

The petitioners, Chalisgaon Municipal Council and a resident, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the constitution...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Court holds that no substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC when findings are based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse.

The case involves a property dispute between the appellants (original defendants) and the respondents (original plaintiffs) concerning land in Village...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Property Suit, Sets Aside Concurrent Findings of Courts Below. Court Holds That Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Title and Possession Over Suit Property, and That the Trial Court Erred in Decreeing the Suit Without Proper Consideration of Evidence.

The case involves a property dispute between the appellants (original defendants) and the respondents (original plaintiffs) over agricultural land. Th...