Search Results for "Collective Investment Scheme"

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 "Collective Investment Scheme"

35 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 35 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against SEBI Order Declaring Art Funds as Collective Investment Schemes. Trusts managing pooled investments in art works held to be Collective Investment Schemes under SEBI Act, 1992, despite being structured as trusts rather than companies.

12 Feb 2020

The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 19936 of 2017 challenging the order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal which had upheld SEBI's directio...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition by Mutual Fund Against Sales Tax Reassessment Orders — Holds Mutual Fund Not a Dealer Under MVAT Act, 2002. Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Beyond Limitation Period and Without Proper Sanction Are Invalid.

6 Aug 2018

The petitioner, Axis Mutual Fund, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging several orders passed by the sales ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Income Tax Case: Subscriptions Received Under Collective Investment Schemes Held to be Capital Receipts Not Income. Peerless General Finance's Subscriptions Not Forfeited During Assessment Years, Hence Not Taxable as Income.

9 Jul 2019

The appeal arose from a dispute between The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. (appellant) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (respo...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Money Decree in Summary Suit for Dishonour of Cheque — Held That Plaintiff Failed to Prove Debt and That Cheque Was Not Issued for Discharge of Existing Liability. The Court set aside the decree as the suit was based on a time-barred debt and the plaintiff failed to establish consideration.

27 Oct 2016

The present appeal arises from a money decree passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Summary Suit No.6980 of 2004. The appellants, who were the ori...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Remands Oppression Petition in Share Allotment Dispute Under Sections 397/398 of Companies Act, 1956 — Preference Shareholder's Voting Rights and Validity of Allotments Require Reconsideration. The Court held that the allotments were made in compliance with Section 81(1A) but the High Court failed to properly assess the allegations of oppression, necessitating a fresh hearing by the Company Law Board.

10 May 2019

The appeal arose from a judgment of the Delhi High Court which set aside an order of the Company Law Board (CLB) in a petition under Sections 397 and ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs SEBI to Liquidate Sai Group of Companies' Assets to Refund Investors Comprehensive Mandate Issued for Asset Auction and Investor Refund Process

15 Jul 2024

The petitioners, a family of three, have invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, seeking several di...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Seeking Eligibility Certificates Under Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993 — Holds That Industrial Units Commencing Production After 1.1.1999 Are Entitled to Benefits Under the Scheme Despite Government Resolution Dated 7.5.1993 Being Superseded by Resolution Dated 31.3.1999. The Court Ruled That the Scheme Continued to Operate for Units Which Had Applied and Were Eligible Under the Earlier Resolution, and That the Respondents Could Not Deny Benefits on Ground of Non-Issuance of Eligibility Certificate.

25 Jul 2012

The petitioners, four industrial units (Shraddha Polymats, Raj Industries, Alpha Plast, and Jayesh Chandulal Shah), filed writ petitions under Article...

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 ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Reopening Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for Venture Capital Fund — No Failure to Disclose Material Facts. Reopening Based on Mere Change of Opinion on Applicability of Section 10(23FB) Exemption is Invalid.

14 Jun 2013

The petitioner, DHFL Venture Capital Fund, is a trust registered as a venture capital fund under SEBI (Venture Capital Fund) Regulations, 1996. It fil...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Assumes Suo Motu Jurisdiction to Address COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis in Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services. The Court directed the Union of India to report on coordination, allocation, and management of oxygen, essential drugs, vaccination, and medical infrastructure under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, emphasizing a bounded-deliberative approach without usurping executive roles.

30 Apr 2021

The Supreme Court of India initiated a suo motu writ petition in response to the unprecedented humanitarian crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Th...

1 2 3

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