U/S 48 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT STATES THAT A FOREIGN AWARD CANNOT BE REFUSED ENFORCEMENT UNLESS IT IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY

In the case between Bulk Trading S.A. Having versus Mahendra Sponge and Power Ltd, the case is about two foreign arbitral awards and their enforcement in Canada which arose from a coal sale contract obligating the respondent to sell 50,000 MT of coal. To fulfil its contractual obligations

Continue ReadingU/S 48 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT STATES THAT A FOREIGN AWARD CANNOT BE REFUSED ENFORCEMENT UNLESS IT IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY

ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE UNDER SECTION 148A(D) OF INCOME TAX ACT, WRIT JURISDICTION CAN BE INVOKED

In the case between Rakesh Agrawal v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others, In this case, the petitioner received a show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act on 24.03.2024, as the Assessing Officer (“AO”) suspected concealed income for a specific assessment year

Continue ReadingORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE UNDER SECTION 148A(D) OF INCOME TAX ACT, WRIT JURISDICTION CAN BE INVOKED

MOTHER AND WIDOW SHARES WERE REDUCED AS A RESULT OF THE 2005 AMENDMENT THAT GAVE DAUGHTERS EQUAL RIGHTS: MADRAS HIGH COURT

In the case of Vasumathi and Another v R Vasudevan and Others, the case involves two daughters challenging the decision of the Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, which had reversed the partition suit in their favour. The daughters wanted a share in the ancestral property based on Section 6

Continue ReadingMOTHER AND WIDOW SHARES WERE REDUCED AS A RESULT OF THE 2005 AMENDMENT THAT GAVE DAUGHTERS EQUAL RIGHTS: MADRAS HIGH COURT

A RESTAURANT OFFENSE THAT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS “HOUSE TRESPASS” UNDER SECTIONS 442, 452 OF THE IPC: SUPREME COURT

In the case of Sonu Choudary v. State of NCT Delhi, the case concerned an appellant who stabbed a restaurant owner in the stomach with a knife after the owner refused to serve him water. The appellant was first found guilty of offences under Sections 324 and 452 of the Indian…

Continue ReadingA RESTAURANT OFFENSE THAT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS “HOUSE TRESPASS” UNDER SECTIONS 442, 452 OF THE IPC: SUPREME COURT