Recently, in Adjudicating Officer (SEBI) v. Bhavesh Pabari, Supreme Court adjudicated the question revolving around the interpretation of Section 15-J of the SEBI Act, 1992 in relation to Section 15-A to Section 15-HA of the Act. Section 15-J elucidates the factors to be taken into account by the Adjudicating officer while adjudging the quantum of…
Parallel proceedings for the recovery of debt under RDBFI Act, 1993 and Companies Act, 1956: Case Comment on Swaraj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
[FIRST PUBLISHED BY TAXMANN.COM, CITATION: [2019] 102 taxmann.com 279 (Article)] Recently, in Swaraj Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd,[i] the Supreme Court of India (hereinafter “Court”) decided the question of whether a secured creditor can file a winding up petition under Companies Act, 2013 after having obtained a recovery certificate from the…
Lottery as ‘Goods’: Case Comment on Teesta Distributors & Ors. v. Union of India
This Post analyses the decision rendered by Calcutta High Court in Teesta Distributors & Ors. v. Union of India regarding whether lotteries are exempt from Tax under CGST and SGST Act, 2017. This question, previously litigated and settled, finds relevance primarily owing to the impact of passage of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 as well as…
Interpreting ambiguity in Exemption Notification: Case Comment on COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), MUMBAI V. M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS
The nature of interpretative rule to be applied for interpreting an exemption notification was litigated recently by the Constitutional Bench in Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s. Dilip Kumar And Company & Ors (“Dilip Kumar”). The bench was primarily set up to examine the correctness of Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (“Sun Export”) wherein,…
Indian Commercial Law Blog 