You may also like...
-
HON’BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SANJAY VIJAYKUMAR GANGAPURWALA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU GIVEN LANDMARK JUDGEMENT ON TDS. W.P 32107 OF 2022, Judgement delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Sanjay Vijaykumar Gangapurwala And Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.D. Audikesavalu, argued by Dr. B. Ramaswamy, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax. The respondent Bank of India remit TDS at 1% as per section 194(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 for
by Sekar Reporter · Published November 30, 2023
-
[11/27, 20:11] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1332332078671695877?s=08 [11/27, 20:11] Sekarreporter1: Reg actor barotta soori case A1 Anbuselvan filed direction petition to quash the criminal case against him an fir lodged by actor Parotta Suriya, his lordship Mr Justice Ravindran ordered notice to actor suri returnable by 4 weeks, Ms Prabhavathi Addl Public Prosecutor took notice for adayar police to file reply
by Sekar Reporter · Published November 27, 2020
-
[27/01, 12:25] Vinothpandian: 2012 ( 1) DRTC 829 : moin leather wear exports & others vs oriental bank of commerce : DRT under guise of setting aside ex parte order cannot recover amount without taking up the matter on merits[27/01, 12:25] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 629 : Panther fin cap & management services ltd vs bank of india : DRT is not a civil court and provisions of CPC cannot be straight way made applicable to proceedings in respect of recovery of amount by recovery officer exercising powers under RDDBFI act 1993[27/01, 12:25] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) BC 1 : B Rajarajeswari vs presiding officer DRT 2 sec 27 ( 4) of RDDBFI act 1993 : circumstances under which a recovery certificate may be amended or withdrawn mentioned in sec 27(4) of RDDBFI act[27/01, 12:25] Vinothpandian: 2017 ( 2) DRTC 630 : Panther fincap & management services ltd vs bank of india : section 25 ( b) RDDBFI act 1993 : Recovery officer recorded findings that though borrower had sufficient means to pay had deliberately avoided to pay debt of bank , wilful disobedience on part of borrowers calls for extreme action like putting them in civil prison by taking recourse to remedies provided under section 25( b) of RDDBFI act 1993[27/01, 12:25] Vinothpandian: 2020 (5) CTC 448 : chenrayan vs kaveri : plea of adverse possession is stand alone concept and cannot be fitted with plea of ownership
by Sekar Reporter · Published January 27, 2024