662 results found

Noting that the term used in Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is 'may', the Madras High Court has observed that the time limit fixed under Section 54(1) is directory in nature and is not mandatory.

The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of First ITO vs. MR Dhanalakshmi Ammal 1978 ITR 413 held that the true test to determine whether the transaction is benami or not is to look into the intention of the parties ...

The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of interim relief available under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, addressing whether unsuccessful parties in arbitration proceedings retain the right to seek protective measures post-award. This landmark ruling examines the interpretation of 'a party' under the statutory framework and establishes the stringent standards courts must apply when evaluating such applications from parties who did not prevail in arbitration.

The Supreme Court has established critical procedural requirements for arrests under the CGST Act, mandating that orders under Section 69 must be communicated to the accused before arrest to protect their right to seek anticipatory bail. This landmark ruling addresses the balance between investigative powers and fundamental rights to liberty, while also clarifying limitations on interim relief when pre-arrest bail petitions are dismissed as non-maintainable.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled on a critical distinction in GST proceedings regarding the timing requirements for demand orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act. When an order is digitally signed within the limitation period but uploaded to the portal after the statutory deadline, does this constitute a valid issuance or a procedural violation that invalidates the demand?

The Karnataka High Court examined the Enforcement Directorate's powers under FEMA in a case involving Genpact India's 2015 corporate restructuring, foreign borrowings, and NCD issuances that resulted in ₹7,800 crore in payments. The dispute centered on whether Section 37A could be applied retrospectively to pre-2015 transactions and whether the ED could reject investment approvals based solely on pending investigations, while also considering the legal significance of RBI's compounding order

Jurisdiction is a primarily a subject matter covered under the Civil procedure Code, 1908. The issue however, came up for deliberation in Lark Laboratories Ltd vs Nabros Pharma Pvt Ltd 2010 (42) PTC 675 (Guj).

The Supreme Court examined whether a party alleging fiduciary misuse in property transactions executed through a General Power of Attorney must first establish foundational facts of fraud before the burden shifts to the beneficiaries.

The matters approved by the Court for urgent hearing would be directly called out in the court.

Velusamy Karuppannan (the ‘Informant’), a software professional, alleged before the CCI that AVEVA Group Limited and its Indian subsidiaries (collectively, ‘AVEVA’) contravened Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Act by abusing its dominant position in the market for industrial automation software (Manufacturing Execution Systems (‘MES’), Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (‘SCADA’), and Historian) through: (i) coercing customers into the AVEVA Flex Subscription model and hiding perpetual licenses, driving higher prices and minimum credit commitments...

The Madras High Court has ruled that defendants in patent infringement cases face a significantly higher burden of proof when claiming protection under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.

Trade slogans are mostly in the form of phrases or sentences or catchy words which are primarily useful in advertising the product. One of the prime feature or qualification of a trademark is that it should be identified with the product. Once the slogan attains the quality of being identified with the product, they can be brought within the ambit of trademark.

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“APTEL”), vide judgment dated 06.04.2026 in Review Petition No. 5 of 2025 in Appeal No. 126 of 2022 (“Review Petition”) partly allowed the Review Petition granting carrying cost on liquidated damages while reaffirming the limited scope of intervention in review proceedings.

The law of Contempt of Courts is for keeping the administration of justice pure and undefiled.

The law sets no minimum holding period or time window for round-tripping.

The High Court of Delhi through its judgment dated 01.07.2025 in Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Ace Technologies Corp. and Ors. held that Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") gives sufficient and wide discretionary power to the court to exercise.

In a significant development in the ongoing case of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (Miscellaneous Application No. 2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021 in SLP(Crl) No. 5191/2021 ), the Supreme Court of India has issued critical directives ...

The Supreme Court in the case of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. V. Sterlite Technologies Ltd. 2015 SCC Online SC 785, has re-iterated the procedure for the appointment of arbitrator in the event of recusal of the presiding arbitrator.