Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Bhupinder Singh VS Unitech Limited...
Bhupinder Singh VS Unitech Limited - 2023 2 Supreme 723 : FR (presumably referring to funds or proceeds received under a court order) can be returned. The court has the inherent jurisdiction to order restitution to neutralize any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the court''''s jurisdiction. In this case, the court directed Shri Naresh Kempanna and Col. Mohinder Khaira to return the amount received and deposit it with the court, along with 9% interest, as the litigation did not result in a favorable outcome for them. This reflects the principle that litigation cannot confer an unfair advantage, and any benefit obtained through court orders must be disgorged if the final decision goes against the party that benefited from the interim or final order.Checking relevance for Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action VS Union of India...
Checking relevance for Universal Imports Agency: Victory Traders VS Chief Controller Of Imports And Exports...
Checking relevance for SURESH VS STATE OF HARYANA...
Checking relevance for Mafatlal Industries LTD. VS Union Of India...
Mafatlal Industries LTD. VS Union Of India - 1997 1 Supreme 684 : FR (refund) can be returned under specific conditions. Refund claims must be made under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act or Customs Act, as applicable, and cannot be pursued through civil suit or writ petition except in two situations: (1) when the levy is unconstitutional, or (2) when the authority lacked inherent jurisdiction. In such cases, refund claims are maintainable by suit or writ petition. However, even in these cases, the claimant must establish that they have not passed on the burden of the duty to another person. If the burden has been passed on, the claimant cannot claim refund as they have not suffered real loss or injury. The doctrine of unjust enrichment prevents a person from being unjustly enriched by receiving a refund while having passed the duty on to a third party. Therefore, FR can be returned only if the claimant proves they have not passed on the burden of the duty.Checking relevance for Rojer Mathew VS South Indian Bank Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...
Checking relevance for Venkateswarane Sivadjy VS Alice Viala...
Checking relevance for KHEMCHAND SHARMA VS PADMALOCHAN PANDA...
KHEMCHAND SHARMA VS PADMALOCHAN PANDA - 1973 0 Supreme(Ori) 18 : Yes, FR (presumably referring to ''''costs'''' or ''''amounts paid under a decree'''') can be returned. Under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court has jurisdiction to order restitution of costs paid under a decree that has been reversed or varied. In the case described, the petitioner paid Rs. 2,041.55 as costs under a decree that was reversed in entirety by the appellate court, and the court held that the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to order restitution of such costs. The court set aside a conditional order and directed the Subordinate Judge to take steps to compel repayment, confirming that restitution of costs paid under a reversed decree is legally permissible.Checking relevance for Bharatiya Bhavan Cooperative Housing Society Limited VS Krishna H. Bajaj...
Bharatiya Bhavan Cooperative Housing Society Limited VS Krishna H. Bajaj - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 252 : The payment of a donation to a co-operative society, which was made voluntarily and without coercion, cannot be refunded or repaid to the member, even if the amount was paid under a misleading description or in excess of the legally permissible limit (Rs. 25,000/-) for transfer fees. The court held that since the respondent had entered into the agreement freely, with legal representation, and had not proven coercion, the donation was valid and not refundable under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.Checking relevance for Ambuja Cements VS State of Rajasthan...
Ambuja Cements VS State of Rajasthan - 2014 0 Supreme(Raj) 499 : The petitioner-Company is liable to return the excess benefit availed under the incentive scheme, as it had given an undertaking on 19.3.2002 to return any benefit received in excess of 25% of sales tax liability. The Supreme Court''''s reversal of the Rajasthan High Court''''s judgment in M/s Binani Cements led to the reduction of the deferment benefit from 75% to 25%, and the petitioner was found to have retained an additional 50% benefit that was not permissible. The court held that the petitioner must return the excess benefit and pay interest on it, as retention of such benefit would constitute unjust enrichment. Therefore, FR (presumably referring to the financial benefit or incentive amount) can be returned, and the petitioner is legally obligated to do so.
