3,987 results found

The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Prakash Narain vs. CIT/CWT(1 [1981] 6 Taxman 159 (All)] has held that for determining a particular transaction as benami, following criteria should be fulfilled:-

Signing Ceremony Of The Guide On Mutual Recognition And Enforcement Of Civil And Commercial Judgments In DIFC Courts And Courts In India Between DIFC Courts And Nishith Desai Associates (September 14, 2018)

The Supreme Court through its judgement dated 31.08.2026 in the matter of Shri Prakash Narain Sharma Dead Through Legal Representative v M/s Burmah Shell Co-Operative Housing Society (Regd.) through Managing Committee Member Sh. P. Jindal & Others held that High Courts exercising their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can set aside orders passed by quasi-judicial authorities.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhim Singh vs. Kaan Singh AIR 1980 (SC), laid down the following principles for deciding whether a transaction is benami or not:-

Certain amendments have been proposed to Regulations 35 (Confidentiality of informants), 37 (Inspection of certified copies of documents submitted during proceedings of the Commission)...

The High Court of Delhi (High Court), in an important decision in CADD Systems and Services Private Limited v Competition Commission of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No 6661 of 2019)] dated 17 July 2019, ...

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (Court) vide its recent judgment in Bar of Indian Lawyers vs D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.

Attachment, adjudication & confiscation under benami transactions (prohibition) amendment act, 2016.

The Court observed that Section 18 of the Limitation Act pertains to getting the benefit of the acknowledgement ade in writing by the opposite party against whom some right is being claimed, however, the same could not be claimed by the person on the basis of an acknowledgement which has been given by the person themselves.

Supreme Court through its judgment dated 27.07.2026 in the matter of Tejas J Shah & Amisha T Shah v. Mantri Technology Constellations Private Limited (Now Known as Buoyant Technology Constellations Private Limited)[1] held that imposition of moratorium on a company under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) is not a ground to reject consumer complaints against the promoters/ directors of the company.

The Delhi HC in its Judgement dated November 4, 2025, in writ petitions filed by Spice Jet Limited and LG Electronic India Private Limited challenging the 2008 and 2010 amendments to the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme...

A judgement of the Supreme Court of India [L.R. Patil v. Gulbarga University, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1110] rendered in the context of an employee of a Govt run University makes the concept...

Section 86(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for renewable purchase obligation on consumption of energy by distribution companies, captive power plants and also open access consumers.

The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 12, 2014 by the Ministery of Women and Child Development.

On 4th April, 2016, the DRAT at New Delhi ruled that banks are not immune from scrutiny, especially if they act against public interest by offering rebates to a defaulter by entering into a one-time settlement.

SEBI has introduced significant amendments to InvIT, AIF, and REIT regulations, lowering credit risk thresholds for liquid mutual funds and expanding investment flexibility.

In an unprecedented move, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare proceeded to prohibit "the manufacture for sale, sale and distribution for human use" of 344 (three hundred and forty four) drugs...

The High Court of Delhi, through its judgment dated 19.06.2026 in M/s EG Communications Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors. , dismissed a challenge to the directions prohibiting political advertisements at Delhi Metro stations during the operation of the Model Code of Conduct (“MCC”) on the ground that it is not violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, 1949 (“Constitution”).