admin, Author at R & R Advocates

11 April

“GENERAL INSURERS ADVISED BY THE INSURANCE REGULATOR (IRDAI) FOR MANDATORY ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN ALL POLICIES UNDER THE COMMERCIAL LINES OF BUSINESS”

Posted by admin
Comments 0 comment

The Insurance Regulator (IRDAI) following a reference made by the Supreme Court of India in M/S National Insurance Company Vs. M/S Nippon Paper Foodpac Pvt. Ltd. [SLP (C) 225-226/2023, decided …

22 March

“THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT PERSONAL GUARANTORS TO CORPORATE DEBTORS ARE UNDER OBLIGATION TO FURNISH INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE RESOLUTION PROFESSION”

Posted by admin
Comments 0 comment

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).16464/2021 SURENDRA B. …

11 March

“SUPREME COURT HELD THAT PARTY HAS A RIGHT TO ADRESS FINAL ARGUMENTS EVEN WHEN NO WRITTEN VERSION WAS FILED AND NO PARTICIPATION MADE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION”

Posted by admin
Comments 0 comment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. /2023 (@ CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 31182/2023) ARN INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS HARA PRASAD GHOSH …..RESPONDENT(S) …

28 February

“INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT) MUMBAI HELD NO PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED FOR NON-DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) UNLESS RECEIVED”

Posted by admin
Comments 0 comment

In this case a Mumbai-based senior citizen filed her Income Tax (IT) returns for the financial year 2016-17 and declared a taxable income of approximately Rs 1.9 crore. Her return …

16 February

“SUPREME COURT HELD THAT NEITHER THE OLD NOR THE REPEALED CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT PROVIDE REMEDY OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC) IN EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE OR REVISONAL JURISDICTION”

Posted by admin
Comments 0 comment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5263 OF 2023 M/s UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL …….…PETITIONER(S) V/S SURESH CHAND JAIN & ANR. ………RESPONDENT(S) …

29 January

“DIVISION BENCH OF DELHI HIGH COURT AFFIRM THAT PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES OF LAWYERS DO NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS OR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND SHOULD NOT BE TAXED AS BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS”

Posted by admin
Comments 0 comment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA 564/2015 SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ….. Appellant versus B N MAGON ….. Respondent In this case a legal dispute …

16 January

“SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE HIGH COURTS & SESSIONS COURTS SHOULD NOT BE SWAYED BY THE SUBMISSIONS & UNDERTAKING OF THE ACCUSED TO KEEP IN DEPOSIT/REPAY ANY AMOUNT AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR GRANT OF BAIL”

Posted by admin
Comments 0 comment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL [ARISING OUT OF SLP (Crl.) NO.2358 OF 2023] RAMESH KUMAR …APPELLANT VS. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI …

22 December

“DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT VAGUE AND SWEEPING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DIRECTORS IS INSUFFICIENT TO IMPUTE ANY CRIMINAL LIBILITY AGAINST THEM IN A COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881”

Posted by admin
Comments 0 comment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C.2480/2017 & OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS SASHI KUMAR NAGARAJI & ORS …… PETITIONERS VS. M/S MAGNIFICO MINERALS PVT. LTD. & ORS ……RESPONDENTS …

20 November

“DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT VAGUE AND SWEEPING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DIRECTORS IS INSUFFICIENT TO IMPUTE ANY CRIMINAL LIBILITY AGAINST THEM IN A COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881”

Posted by admin
Comments 0 comment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C.2480/2017 & OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS SASHI KUMAR NAGARAJI & ORS …… PETITIONERS VS. M/S MAGNIFICO MINERALS PVT. LTD. & ORS ……RESPONDENTS …

19 October

“NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HELD THAT EVERY DEATH OF A PATIENT CANNOT, ON THE FACE OF IT, BE CONSIDERED AS DEATH DUE TO MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE, UNLESS THERE IS MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST TO THAT EFFECT”

Posted by admin
Comments 0 comment

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FIRST APPEAL NO. 358/2013 PHILIPS THOMAS & ORS …. APPELLANT(S) VS. DEEN HOSPITAL & ORS …. RESPONDENT(S) AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 662/2013 DEEN HOSPITAL & …

admin

“GENERAL INSURERS ADVISED BY THE INSURANCE REGULATOR (IRDAI) FOR MANDATORY ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN ALL POLICIES UNDER THE COMMERCIAL LINES OF BUSINESS”

“THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT PERSONAL GUARANTORS TO CORPORATE DEBTORS ARE UNDER OBLIGATION TO FURNISH INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE RESOLUTION PROFESSION”

“SUPREME COURT HELD THAT PARTY HAS A RIGHT TO ADRESS FINAL ARGUMENTS EVEN WHEN NO WRITTEN VERSION WAS FILED AND NO PARTICIPATION MADE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION”

“INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT) MUMBAI HELD NO PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED FOR NON-DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) UNLESS RECEIVED”

“SUPREME COURT HELD THAT NEITHER THE OLD NOR THE REPEALED CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT PROVIDE REMEDY OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC) IN EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE OR REVISONAL JURISDICTION”

“DIVISION BENCH OF DELHI HIGH COURT AFFIRM THAT PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES OF LAWYERS DO NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS OR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND SHOULD NOT BE TAXED AS BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS”

“SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE HIGH COURTS & SESSIONS COURTS SHOULD NOT BE SWAYED BY THE SUBMISSIONS & UNDERTAKING OF THE ACCUSED TO KEEP IN DEPOSIT/REPAY ANY AMOUNT AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR GRANT OF BAIL”

“DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT VAGUE AND SWEEPING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DIRECTORS IS INSUFFICIENT TO IMPUTE ANY CRIMINAL LIBILITY AGAINST THEM IN A COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881”

“DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT VAGUE AND SWEEPING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DIRECTORS IS INSUFFICIENT TO IMPUTE ANY CRIMINAL LIBILITY AGAINST THEM IN A COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881”

“NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HELD THAT EVERY DEATH OF A PATIENT CANNOT, ON THE FACE OF IT, BE CONSIDERED AS DEATH DUE TO MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE, UNLESS THERE IS MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST TO THAT EFFECT”

R & R Advocates

Useful Links

Our Visitors

Get In Touch