Recent Interesting Decisions : 2023

Recent Decisions : 2023

It is clear from the Regulation 14 and 15 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1964 that the stipulated procedure required the Committee report to contain a statement of allegations, the defense entered by the delinquent Chartered Accountant, the recorded evidence and the conclusions of Committee. The Council is to apply its mind to the report of Committee and is empowered to conclude regarding the guilt of its member or otherwise. - ICAI v CA Gordhanbhai Madhabhai Savalia [2023] GCtR 1743 (Bombay)

When case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence it is inevitable for the prosecution to prove the motive.  - Shyam Vishnu Yadav v State. of Maharashtra [2023] GCtR 1744 (Bombay) 

It was reiterated that satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that noninterference by the Court would result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury. - M/s. Nanded City Development and Construction Company Ltd v Laxman Eknath Dedge [2023] GCtR 1745 (Bombay)

Court cannot restrain holding of any Extra Ordinary General meeting. There are only certain exceptions, where Court can interfere and it can be only when procedural and numerical requirements are not fulfilled.  - Gaurang Ajit Sheth v Arcadia Shares And Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd [2023] GCtR 1746 (Bombay)

To bring a marital dispute within the ambit of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act for dissolution of marriage, cruelty has to be proved. Though filing of a criminal complaint per-se cannot be termed as an act of cruelty yet, at the same time, the allegations of cruelty as made in the criminal case(s), should have been substantiated in the divorce proceedings. - Tapsi Vidyarthi v Arvind Kumar Singh [2023] GCtR 1747 (Delhi)

Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 stipulates that an application for refund may be filed within the period of two years from the relevant date. The expression ‘relevant date’ is defined in Explanation (2) to Section 54 of the CGST Act. Department has been directed to process the application for refund of ITC within time bound manner. - Star Publishers Distributors v Assistant Commissioner of CGST [2023] GCtR 1748 (Delhi)

Source - https://www.linkedin.com/in/gctr-legal-updates-58276a234/ accessed on 29/10/2023 at 11 : 20 p.m.