Assessment notice sent to wrong address of the assessee due to non-updating of new Address in PAN is not bad in law-18 October 2019
The Supreme Court has held that mere extension of time for deposit of balance sale consideration will not absolve the plaintiff of obligation to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part in an agreement
The Delhi High Court has held that dispute arising out of separate agreements having distinct arbitration clauses can be referred to a joint arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that the decree against plaintiffs by default bars fresh suit on the same cause of action by their successor in title
The Delhi High Court (HC) has held that for the purpose of Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which restrains a Court from granting an injunction in a suit involving an infrastructure project
A person who has “perfected title” over an immovable property through adverse possession can maintain a suit under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for declaration of title and for the restoration of his possession in the event of dispossession.
The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that, in matter of condonation of delay, the Consumer Commission should take liberal view. The bench set aside an order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had refused to condone a delay of 207 days in filing the revision Petition before it. Referring to an old Supreme Court judgment in Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., the Consumer Commission had held that the Petitioner had not properly explained the delay and thus no case is made out to condone the delay.
The Order can be accessed
The Delhi High Court (HC) has held that specific performance of a Development Agreement cannot be granted when its fundamental terms are not specified and the parties are yet to agree on them
The Apex consumer commission has held that a builder cannot forfeit any amount deposited by homebuyer in case he/she seeks cancellation of allotment of flat due to delay in project and directed Supertech to refund entire amount of over ₹ 1 crore to a buyer for delay of two year in delivering the house
The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that even if the family settlement was not registered, it would operate as a complete estoppel against the original plaintiff who was party to such settlement