Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

When 90% or more of the creditors decide that it will be in the interest of all the stake­holders to permit Settlement Plan filed by promoter of the Corporate Debtor and withdraw Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as per Section 12A of the Insol

Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 18th October 2016 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. By t

The AAR, Maharashtra in the matter of Gulf Turbo Solutions LLP [Advance Ruling No. GST- ARA- 101/2019-20/B-53 dated April 27, 2022]has held that assessee providing marketing services to a foreign company and acting as a conduit between a foreign comp

The Apex Court earlier in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harichand Rai Chandan Lal held that that 'theft from the premises by forceful and violently' would mean entry by use of any force, however slight it may be.

Denying the appellant's claim on account of upholding an unfavourable interpretation of an ambiguous term would entail the respondent not performing its duties as a government company.

Female heirs of a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law dying intestate could not impress upon their inherited property the character of joint family property. The properties inherited from her husband was assessable in the hands of the

A Person involved in buying goods or availing services for the purpose of earning his livelihood through self-employment would be within the scope of the definition of consumer.

Insurance company can be made liable only in respect of the number of passengers for whom insurance can be taken under the Motor Vehicles Act and for whom insurance has been taken as a fact and not in respect of the other passengers involved in the a

The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Century Plyboards (India) Ltd. &Anr. v. the Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) 3210 of 2022 dated May 18, 2022] held that the Managing Director ("MD") of a company should not be directly summoned by authorities under Secti

The Apex Court held that - after considering all aspects of the meaning of lease including financial lease held that the Appellant in this case an operational creditor and not a financial creditor and thus was not entitled to treated as so in the CIR