Last Updated:
May 14, 2022

Click here to submit your article
Administrative Law
Per Page :

One way ANOVA Test with four different types of Online payment apps.

One way ANOVA Test with four different types of Online payment apps. Author: Miss. Isha Dhaktode. Objective: One way ANOVA Test with four different types of Online payment apps. Literature Review: Literature Review on Adoption of Digital Payment System India is no longer lagging behind other countries in joining the digital payment revolution. Digital payments have taken off in India and there are no chances of it to slow down in the future. With the demonetization by the government of India of highest currency notes in the country as well as the incentives provided for the adoption of digital payment Read More
0 Views : 122

Collector Of Customs vs Titan Watches

1. Order-in-Appeal No. 50/91, dated 4-3-1991 setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 11-5-1990 elapsed the Assistant Collector of Customs, metropolis is challenged by the Department. 2. Respondent, engaged within the manufacture of watches, foreign a consignment of watch elements and conferred Bill of Entry dated 11-5-1990, Invoice and alternative documents and wanted clearance at the assessable price indicated in this. The consignment consisted of Crystals, Gaskets, ‘O’ Rings. Assistant Collector increased the worth of Crystals of 2 models from Japanese Yen twenty-two to Japanese Yen twenty-eight per unit and Japanese Yen thirty per unit severally. Respondent paid duty consequently and cleared Read More
0 Views : 119

Askari Mirza v. Bibi Jai Kishori

A criminal prosecution was instituted against a person and fearing the result of prosecution, he entered into an agreement in consideration of the other party abandoning the prosecution. It was held that the threat of criminal prosecution is not per se an act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code. Hence, consent is valid. Basic information: Coercion: Coercion is the act or process of persuading someone forcefully to do something that they do not want to do. Section 15 in the Indian Contract Act 1872 defines coercion as committing or threatening to commit or carry out any act forbidden by the Read More
2 Views : 1010

Arvind Mills vs Commissioner of Income Tax

1. Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal for short) dated 31st March, 2009. In response to the notice issued, learned counsel Mr. Ranjan appeared on behalf of respondent assessee. 2. Counsel for both the sides made detailed submissions. With their consent such arguments were treated to be for final disposal of the Appeal. 3. The appeal arises in the following factual background:– 3.1 The respondent assessee had lodged its claim of interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) towards the tax paid which was Read More
0 Views : 92

case study

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY LTD. VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 1. The assesses has filed the appeals against the common order gone the CIT(A), for the asst. yrs. 1999-2000 to 2001-02, by that the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the orders passed beneath Section 201(1) of the Act and resultant levy of interest beneath Section 201(1A) of the Act. 2. the actual fact concerned within the gift case is that the assesses could be a branch of Samsung company Ltd., Korea, engaged within the development, manufacture and export of computer code to be used by its parent company, i.e., Samsung natural philosophy Co. Read More
0 Views : 84

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. AI. Chopra and Konkan Railway Corp. Ltd

Chapter 17 of the patent act states: USE OF INVENTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF GOVERNMENT AND ACQUISITION OF INVENTIONS BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT This means that the government authority by itself or by appointing a third party agency can use the patent for the use of the government with the approval of the patentee paying him a royalty or any form of remuneration agreed between two parties. Section 47 states that the Government may import, make and use the patented inventions for its own use. The scope of this provision is narrow when compared with government use highlighted in Section 100, wherein Read More
0 Views : 81

FCRIMS Assigment Case

Name: Shraddha Satere Roll no: M2039 Sehgal School of Competition vs Dalbir Singh This case highlighted the importance of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 when it comes to consumer redress. The present case involves a student (respondent) who was denied a fee refund by his medical coaching facility (appellant). Facts The respondent enrolled in the appellant’s institute for two years of preparation for the medical entrance exams. Within six months, the respondent had paid the lump sum costs of Rs. 18,734 in two instalments. After a year, the respondent quit the institute in the middle, claiming that it wasn’t Read More
0 Views : 78

Hindustan Unilever Vs Amul

Amul aired 2 television advertisements that compared amul ice- cream with frozen desserts. The storyline of the ad is a young girl who shows get an ice-cream reward this leads to visual showing two cups one labelled amul and the other labelled frozen dessert(Mentioned as made up of vegetable oil) In the amul cup they show milk flowing in it whereas on the other cup thick, semi solid liquid resembling “Dalda” flowing in it. With this visual, the voiceover clarifies that Amul’s ice cream is made up of real milk and frozen dessert is made of Vanaspati. It also instructs Read More
0 Views : 97

Manojit Saha v. Big Bazar

The Complainant’s argument is that on June 16, 2019 (Sunday), the Complainant went to the Big Bazar in Agartala and purchased a pair of Jeans pants for Rs.499.50/-, which was a 50% discount from the original price. He was also forced to buy one paper bag for Rs.10/-. The complainant noticed that the bag’s MRP of Rs. 10/- was not mentioned anywhere. According to the Complainant, the Big Bazar exploited the bag as a medium of advertisement by printing a caption on it FBB, which invites unfair trade practises and a lack of service on the part of the O.P. Read More
1 Views : 135


This application is filed pursuant to Sections 446 (1) & (2) and 537 of the Companies Act, 1956, r/w Rules 6 & 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, requesting that the official liquidator disburse Rs.8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Only) on an ad hoc interim basis. According to the petition, properties of the company in liquidation are in the possession of the official liquidator pursuant to the winding up order, and the applicant herein, as the sole first charge-holder, has been incurring expenses on the security for preservation and protection of the company in liquidation’s assets, both movable and immovable, Read More
1 Views : 147