Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Main case details - Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (L&T) filed a series of petitions and appeals challenging government actions, including tax assessments, import duties, and contractual disputes involving various government agencies and private entities. The case involves multiple proceedings across different courts, including the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, with references to earlier judgments and statutory interpretations ["M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Delhi"], ["SH. NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF JALANDHAR vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 JALANDHAR - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal"].
Classification of load cells - The courts consistently held that load cells are parts of weigh-bridges, not standalone instruments. The Special Bench of CEGAT in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. CCE (1991) confirmed load cells as parts of weigh-bridges, which impacts their classification for tax purposes. No evidence was produced to show load cells qualify as complete instruments independently, supporting the rejection of claims for exemption or different classification ["Indchem Instrumentation Ltd. VS Commissioner of Customs, Madras - Custom Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal"].
Binding legal precedents - Several judgments reaffirm that the decision in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE (2006) is binding on related cases regarding classification and taxation issues. Courts have disposed of appeals in accordance with this precedent, emphasizing its authority in determining the classification of equipment and related tax benefits ["M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Delhi"], ["M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Delhi"].
Contractual and import issues - The joint venture of Larsen & Toubro with Alpine Bau Gmbh was accepted as having contractual obligations, including import duties, with the acceptance of LOA and agreement terms. The courts noted that the joint venture explicitly accepted clauses related to customs duties, influencing the classification and tax treatment of imported construction equipment ["M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Delhi"], ["M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Delhi"].
Tax and service tax matters - Larsen & Toubro’s position on service tax prior to amendments in 2007 was considered, affirming that service tax on indivisible works contracts was not applicable before the relevant legislative change. Courts relied on Larsen & Toubro’s judgments to interpret the scope of service tax applicability and to uphold assessments ["Simplex Infrastructures Ltd VS Commissioner Of Service Tax Commissionerate, Kolkata - Calcutta"], ["Simplex Infrastructures Ltd VS Commissioner Of Service Tax Commissionerate, Kolkata - Calcutta"].
Disputes over lease and property income - In cases involving lease agreements and land assessments, courts clarified that land leased to Larsen & Toubro (or related entities) was assessable as income from property, and the lease rent was correctly classified. The courts rejected claims that the lease income was misclassified or should be treated differently ["SH. NARESH KUMAR ANAND HUF JALANDHAR vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 JALANDHAR - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal"].
Overall conclusion - Larsen & Toubro Ltd. has been a significant party in numerous legal rulings, primarily concerning classification of equipment, import duties, and contractual obligations. The courts have consistently upheld the authority of Larsen & Toubro’s legal positions, especially regarding classification of load cells as parts of weigh-bridges and the interpretation of tax statutes based on prior judgments. The decisions emphasize adherence to established precedents and statutory interpretations in resolving disputes involving Larsen & Toubro ["M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Delhi"], ["Indchem Instrumentation Ltd. VS Commissioner of Customs, Madras - Custom Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal"], ["M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Delhi"].
In the world of corporate litigation in India, few names carry as much weight as Larsen & Toubro Ltd (L&T), a multinational conglomerate involved in engineering, construction, manufacturing, and more. Legal enthusiasts and professionals often search for specifics on high-profile cases like Larsen and Toubro Ltd vs Anand Bangad and Ors. But what happens when a thorough dive into court documents yields no direct hits? This post examines the query Larsen and Toubro Ltd vs. Anand Bangad and Ors., highlights the absence of information in available records, and explores related L&T disputes to provide context. Note: This is general information based on reviewed documents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific guidance.
When researching Larsen and Toubro Ltd vs Anand Bangad and Ors., one expects details on parties, issues, holdings, or outcomes. However, a comprehensive review of legal documents reveals no proceedings, judgments, or details pertaining to this exact case. No high-confidence matches exist, meaning:
This absence underscores the importance of precise sourcing in legal research. Exclusion of tangential references adheres to high-confidence relevance standards, ensuring accuracy. Larsen And Toubro Ltd. (LANDT) VS Lachmi Narain Trades - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 4640
A detailed scan shows:
Broader L&T litigation cannot substitute for direct evidence on Anand Bangad.
Though the specific case eludes the documents, L&T's legal footprint is vast. Integrating insights from other sources sheds light on common themes in L&T disputes, such as trademarks, contracts, taxes, and arbitration. These may offer indirect relevance for researchers.
L&T frequently litigates to protect its brand. In one suit, L&T sought perpetual injunction for passing off: the plaintiff has filed the present suit for perpetual injunction, passing off... The word 'Larsen' and/or the word 'Toubro' have been associated... exclusively with the plaintiff. Larsen And Toubro Ltd. (LANDT) VS Lachmi Narain Trades - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 4640
Similarly, in Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Lachmi Narain Trades and Others (2008), prior use and trademark exclusivity were key. Rikhab Chand Jain VS T. T. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. - 2013 Supreme(Del) 2557 Other cases echo this, like Aktiebolaget Volvo and Others Vs. Mr. Vinod Kumar and Others referencing L&T precedents on vested rights under Section 34 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Courts emphasized prima facie cases, balance of convenience, and lack of similarity in goods/services. Rikhab Chand Jain VS T. T. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. - 2013 Supreme(Del) 2557
L&T's construction projects spawn bank guarantee and license agreement battles. In a notable case, an unconditional bank guarantee was upheld: The Suit Bank Guarantee is an unconditional and irrevocable Bank Guarantee... A mere statement in the invocation letter... is sufficient. Courts refused injunctions absent fraud or irretrievable injustice. ABG Kandla Container Terminal Ltd. VS Axis Bank Ltd. - 2013 Supreme(Bom) 824
Related appeals like Puri Construction Ltd. and Ors vs Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Anr. (FAO(OS) series, 2009-2015) involved construction claims, with Delhi High Court pronunciations on 30.04.2015. PURI CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. AND ORS. vs LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR.-23_2009) MOHINDER PURI vs LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR.-22_2009) M/S. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. vs PURI CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ORS.-194_2009) MOHINDER PURI vs LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR.PURI CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. AND ORS. vs LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR.M/S. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. vs PURI CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ORS.
Tax disputes are recurrent. L&T featured in service tax appeals: The decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE 2006 4 STT 231 (New Delhi - CESTAT) is only applicable. S. B. Enterprise VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin
In stamp duty cases under Maharashtra Stamps Act and Transfer of Property Act, L&T precedents distinguished future leases: ratio of the decision in Larsen and Toubro Ltd and ors. (supra) would also not be applicable... there was no lease created in favour of the parties. Abhijeet Ashoka Infra Structure Pvt. Limited VS Joint District Registrar (Class-I) and The Collector of Stamps - 2020 Supreme(Bom) 311
CST Act assessments on motor vehicle sales referenced L&T indirectly via jurisdictional principles. Renault Nissan Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. VS Deputy Commissioner-Ii (FAC) - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 3305
Arbitration challenges under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act cited L&T: Courts lack power to modify awards or grant unrequested reliefs. Angel Broking Ltd. VS Sharda Kapur - 2017 Supreme(Del) 1362
Government writs like Larsen and Toubro Ltd and Anr vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors (W.P.(C) 1916/2012 et al.) highlight public contract issues. M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Supreme Court nods: Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) bound appeals on corporate matters. RAJENDER RAMCHANDER AGARWAL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Schemes of arrangement with UltraTech and tax disallowances as holding company further illustrate diversity. Larson & Toubro Limited VS N. R. - 2004 0 Supreme(Bom) 635TRACTOR ENGINEERS LTD. VS FIRST INCOME-TAX OFFICER - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (1985)
If you have additional documents, re-analysis may uncover more. For businesses, L&T cases typically stress contractual clarity, brand protection, and appellate remedies.
Disclaimer: This analysis draws from specific documents and generally outlines trends. Legal outcomes vary; seek professional advice tailored to your situation.
#LarsenToubroCase, #IndianLaw, #CourtJudgments
(C) 1916/2012 LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD AND ANR Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 21. W.P.(C) 1917/2012 LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD AND ANR Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ... Larsen And Toubro Ltd. ... (C) 1920/2012 LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD AND ANR Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ....
DR on the other hand submits that load cell is a part has been held so by the Special Bench, CEGAT in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. Vs. CC - 1991 (56) ELT 823. ... Therefore in view of lack of any evidence produced and in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Larsen Toubro Ltd. Vs. CC the rejection of claim by the Collector (Appeals) is correct and requires to be upheld. ... On a careful consideration we notice that the Tribunal in the case of Larsen #....
LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS STARLIGHT HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LTD. ... None has pointed out any contrary decision to the decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra). 2. ... In that view of the matter, we dispose of the present Appeal in terms of the binding decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra). ... In that view of the matter, we dispose of the present Appeals in terms of the binding decision of this ....
LTD. AND ORS… ……Appellants. Versus LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR. ... AND TOUBRO LTD. ... LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. ……Appellant Versus PURI CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ORS. . ……..Respondents Through: Sh. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Pronounced on: 30.04.2015 + FAO(OS) 22/2009 MOHINDER PURI … ……Appellant Versus LARSEN#HL_E....
LTD. AND ORS… ……Appellants. Versus LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR. ... AND TOUBRO LTD. ... LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. ……Appellant Versus PURI CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ORS. . ……..Respondents Through: Sh. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Pronounced on: 30.04.2015 + FAO(OS) 22/2009 MOHINDER PURI … ……Appellant Versus LARSEN#HL_E....
LTD. AND ORS… ……Appellants. Versus LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR. ... AND TOUBRO LTD. ... LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. ……Appellant Versus PURI CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ORS. . ……..Respondents Through: Sh. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Pronounced on: 30.04.2015 + FAO(OS) 22/2009 MOHINDER PURI … ……Appellant Versus LARSEN#HL_E....
LTD. AND ORS… ……Appellants. Versus LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR. ... AND TOUBRO LTD. ... LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. ……Appellant Versus PURI CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ORS. . ……..Respondents Through: Sh. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Pronounced on: 30.04.2015 + FAO(OS) 22/2009 MOHINDER PURI … ……Appellant Versus LARSEN#HL_E....
LTD. AND ORS… ……Appellants. Versus LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR. ... AND TOUBRO LTD. ... LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. ……Appellant Versus PURI CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ORS. . ……..Respondents Through: Sh. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Pronounced on: 30.04.2015 + FAO(OS) 22/2009 MOHINDER PURI … ……Appellant Versus LARSEN#HL_E....
LTD. AND ORS… ……Appellants. Versus LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. AND ANR. ... AND TOUBRO LTD. ... LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. ……Appellant Versus PURI CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ORS. . ……..Respondents Through: Sh. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Pronounced on: 30.04.2015 + FAO(OS) 22/2009 MOHINDER PURI … ……Appellant Versus LARSEN#HL_E....
In the Larsen & Toubro Ltd. ... Moreover, the Larger Bench in the Larsen & Toubro Ltd. ... The decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE [2006] 4 STT 231 (New Delhi - CESTAT) is only applicable. ... Ltd. [Final Order No. 247 of 2006-ST(PB), dated 26-7-2006]. (f)Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE [2006] 5 STT 390 (New Delhi - CESTAT). ......
In the light of these facts the ratio thereof is clearly distinguishable and is thus not applicable to the case in hand. Similarly the ratio of the decision in Larsen and Toubro Ltd and ors. (supra) would also not be applicable to the case in hand inasmuch as in said case also there was no lease created in favour of the parties and such lease was to be created after the construction was to be completed.
vs. State of Karnataka,2019 19 VST 239(SC)), (Larsen and Toubro Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2016) 88 VST 422), (Sundaram Industries v. state of Tamil Nadu, (1992) 86 STC 554), (State of Tamilnadu vs. (c) In support of her contention, the learned Additional Advocate General relied on (A& G Projects and Technologies Ltd. Mahaveer Chemicals Industries, (2012) 49 VST 200 (Mad) ) .
It was held that civil courts hearing objections under Section 34 of the Act have only power to set aside the Award and thereafter parties are free to again invoke arbitration proceedings to seek the reliefs which have been denied to them. Vs. Larsen And Toubro Ltd. and Anr., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9126. The Division Bench of this Court has considered the two divergent views as regards the power of the court to modify the Award by granting reliefs which are not granted by the Award, and this Court held that courts do not have the power to modify the Award and grant additional ....
Mr. Setalvad has submitted that the decisions relied upon by the Plaintiff viz. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others and State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. M.N. Kaul (AIR 1967 SC 1634)(supra) also lend no assistance to the Plaintiff.
It is further stated that TT Finance was a sister concern of the plaintiff No. 2 which merged with the plaintiff No. 2 in the year 1999. Aktiebolaget Volvo and Others Vs. Mr. Vinod Kumar and Others, (2011) 46 PTC 28; c). Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Lachmi Narain Trades and Others, (2008) 2 ILR Delhi 687.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
