Search Results for "directory time limit"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Review Petition in Partition Suit Impleadment...
Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witn...
Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case — Death Not Arising O...

Search Results for "directory time limit"

165 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 165 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Sanction and Cognizance in UAPA Case — No Infirmity Found in Sanction Order or Cognizance Proceedings. The Court upheld the validity of the NIA's takeover of investigation and the sanction order under Section 45(2) UAPA, finding that the timeline for independent review is directory and the cognizance order was based on prima facie material.

20 Sep 2024

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Fuleshwar Gope challenging the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court which refused to quash the sanctio...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Sanction and Cognizance in UAPA Case — No Infirmity Found in Sanction Order or Cognizance Order. Court upholds validity of suo-motu sanction under Section 45(2) of UAPA and cognizance order under Section 120B IPC read with UAPA and CLA Act.

20 Sep 2024

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Fuleshwar Gope challenging the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court which refused to quash the sanctio...

High Court

Bombay High Court Holds Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act Directory — Interim Compensation Requires Recording of Reasons. Court clarifies that Section 143-A is not mandatory and reasons must be recorded for quantum under Section 143-A(2).

7 Jul 2022

The judgment arises from two criminal writ petitions filed by Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar (accused) against Laxmikant Govind Joshi (complainant) under the...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Assessment Order for Violation of Section 144C(11) Time Limit — DRP Directions Issued Beyond Nine-Month Period Invalid. The court held that the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions under Section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be issued within nine months from the end of the month in which the draft assessment order is received, and failure renders the assessment order void.

14 Feb 2022

The petitioner, Shell India Markets Private Limited, a company engaged in retailing petroleum products and supplying lubricants, challenged an assessm...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Customs Broker License Suspension Case — Prohibition Orders Set Aside for Violation of Natural Justice. CESTAT's Order Restoring Customs Broker License Upheld as Show Cause Notice and Hearing Were Not Provided Before Issuing Prohibition Orders Under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962.

12 Jan 2022

The Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Division, filed an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the Final Order No.A/20356/20...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Transitional Input Tax Credit Under GST — Time Limit for Filing TRAN-1 Form Held Directory, Not Mandatory. The court directed the GST authorities to accept the TRAN-1 Form filed beyond the prescribed time limit, holding that the time limit was directory and the petitioner had sufficient cause for delay.

20 Mar 2020

The petitioner, Nelco Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, supplies and undertakes various network-related services. It file...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Holds Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Directory — District Forum Can Extend Time for Filing Reply Beyond 45 Days in Exceptional Circumstances. The 30-day period for filing reply commences from receipt of notice by the opposite party.

1 Jan 2020

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench addressed two questions referred regarding Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The first quest...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Ruling That Time Limit Under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act is Directory. The provision requiring District Magistrate to pass possession order within 30 days (extendable to 60 days) is directory, as non-compliance does not invalidate proceedings or prejudice the borrower.

1 Jan 2020

The appeal arose from a judgment of the Kerala High Court which held that the time limit under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeals of Revenue Authorities in Stamp Duty Undervaluation Cases — Revisional Powers Under Section 47A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Upheld. The Court held that the limitation period for suo motu revision by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is five years from the date of the order, not from the date of registration.

1 Jan 2020

The Supreme Court of India heard a batch of civil appeals arising from orders of the Madras High Court concerning the interpretation of Section 47A of...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Tenants' Appeals in West Bengal Eviction Case — Limitation Act Not Applicable to Section 7(2) Application Under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The Court held that the time limits under Section 7(2) are mandatory and only one extension of up to two months is permissible, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply.

13 Aug 2019

The appeals arose from eviction petitions filed by the respondent-landlord against the appellants-tenants under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, ...

1 2 3

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