M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, T.AMARNATH GOUD
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Finance – Respondent
ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
The petitioner in this Writ Petition is the State Bank of India, rep by it’s DGM and Branch Head, Stressed asset Management Branch, Hyderabad.
2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice F.No.INV/DGCEI/HZU/ST/49/2016-17 dt.11.6.2019 issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit (3rd respondent) issued under Sec.87 of the Finance Act, 1994 as being contrary to the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’) and seeks to have it set aside.
3. The 1st respondent herein is the Union of India, Ministry of Finance rep.by it’s Secretary, Service Tax Wing, New Delhi; the 2nd respondent is the Director General of GST Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit; the 4th respondent is the Deputy commissioner of Income tax, circle 3 (1), Hyderabad; the 5th respondent is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- II & it’s Recovery Officer, Regional Office, Hyderabad.
4. The 6th respondent is M/s SEW Infrastructures Limited, Greenlands, Hyderaba
Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala
Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd
Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial & Investment Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.