Loan and Advance to be Differentiated: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
Whether the amount in question was a ‘loan’ or an ‘advance’, was a question considered by the NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRIN
Extension of Service and Performance of Duty gives rise to Entitlement to Salary: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar
Whether superannuation is to be taken as extension in service or is to be treated as fresh employment, and whether such performance of duty gives r
Under section 482 CrPC, reliability or genuineness of allegations made in FIR/Complaint cannot be scrutinized: Supreme Court of India
While exercising its jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, a High court cannot embark upon any enquiry regarding the reliability and genuineness of
During a vehicle search section, 50 NDPS Act is not necessary to be complied with: Supreme Court of India
The provisions laid down under section 50 NDPS Act are only required to be mandatorily followed in case of searching a person, On an occasion of a
In any case any objection same in nature cannot be raised or heard twice and adjudicated again: High Court of Delhi.
In any case any objection same in nature cannot be raised or heard twice and adjudicated again: High Court of Delhi. Any same objection of a case
Any mere irregularity cannot be the reason of quashing of the any Judgement: High court of Delhi.
Any mere irregularity cannot be the reason of quashing of the any Judgement: High court of Delhi. Section 392 of the IPC deals with punishment for
No Bail in case of Serious and Heinous Offences: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
Where there is a charge for a heinous and serious offence, there is no reason for the Court to grant bail, as observed by the High Court of Jammu &
Validity of caste certificate considered afresh in favour of the appellant: Supreme Court of India.
Setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Hon’ble M. R. Shah, J in the case of Rushikesh Bharat Garud vs. The State
Captive users are not liable to pay the additional surcharge levied under Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003: Supreme Court of India
So far as the captive consumers / captive users are concerned, they are not liable to pay the additional surcharge under Section 42(4) of the Act,
Land Acquisition Act,1894- Guesswork involved in fixation of market value is to be made by adopting well-recognized methods: Supreme Court of India.
It is well settled that fixation of market value in a Reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 necessarily involves some gues
