Outstanding Amount - Judgment Search Results
Indore Development Authority versus Dr. Hemant Mandovra
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Dec-13-2024
Reported in: [2024]12S.C.R.1038
scheme. In a writ petition filed by the Respondent, High Court directed the respondent to pay the balance outstanding amount within 30 days and directed the appellant to handover the possession of the plot to the respondent. Respondent … the said amount. On such application, State Commission passed an interim order directing the appellant to accept the outstanding amount with interest and to deliver the possession of plot. In the revision petition, the National Commission directed the
Chandigarh Administrator & Ors. & Etc. Etc. versus Manjit Kumar Gulati ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Dec-10-2024
Reported in: [2024]12S.C.R.947
outstanding dues. Whether the High Court committed error in restoring the allotment and directing them to pay the outstanding amount. Headnotes† Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, … the High Court restored the plot allotted to the allottee and respondents herein were directed to pay the outstanding amount - Correctness: Held: In the instant case, despite sufficient opportunities of hearing given to the allottees to clear
Rahul Builders Vs. Arihant Fertilizers and Chemical and anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR572; (2008)2CompLJ83(SC); 2008CriLJ452; 2007(5)CTC876; JT2007(12)SC495; 2007(4)KLT977(SC); 2008(4)MhLj365; 2008(1)MPHT146(SC); RLW2008(1)SC549; 2007(12)SCALE662; AIR2008SC3111; 2008(2)SCC321; (2008)1SCC(Cri)703; 2008(1)CivilLJ796; 2008(1)AICLR296; 2008(1)ICC284
No. 1 had made payments of Rs. 17,74,238/- and a balance of Rs. 8,72,409/- was said to be outstanding. A cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on Federal Bank Limited, Indore was issued by Respondent … closed. Hence the undersigned is now free to take up any legal step against you to get the amount of my pending bills. In view of the above, you are requested to remit the payment of my
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Hcg Stock and Share Brokers Limited Vs. Gaggar Suresh
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Dec-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2007SC395; 2007(2)AWC1240(SC); [2007]137CompCas954(SC); (2007)1CompLJ298(SC); 2006(13)SCALE377; (2007)2SCC279; [2007]73SCL1(SC)
reference) on or before 15th Feb.2001. That means on 8.2.2001 the appellant has already given notice that the outstanding amount of Rs.49,79,388.17 was due to it towards the trade and transaction but that has not been paid and … appellant carried out transaction on behalf of respondent was 1.7.1999 On 8.2.2001 appellant already given notice to pay outstanding amount due to it towards trade and transaction to be paid by 15.2.2001 By another letter appellant called upon
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rajiv Dubey
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Dec-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(16)SCALE62; 2009(1)SCC706; 2009(1)LHSC64; 2009(1)SCC(Cri)603
Corporation Pvt. Ltd. stood at Rs. 2,39,73,795/- the said amount being unpaid despite several reminders to settle the outstanding amount.6. The appellants presented 7 cheques on 29-03-2000 bearing numbers and amounts as following:Cheque No. Amount Dated7891578 1655516/- 29-03-20007891579 … 34 IPC before SDJM Bhubneshwar on 11-05-2000, inter-alia, claiming that the cheques issued by respondent were towards an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,89,000/- and the said payment has already been made by the Respondent by way of a
Mcdermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)ALD84(SC); 2006(2)ARBLR498(SC); (2007)1CALLT36(SC); (2007)3CompLJ213(SC); (2006)4MLJ456(SC); 2006(6)SCALE220; (2006)11SCC181; 2005(10)SCC353; MANU/SC/8177/2006
1989 US$ 10,909,772.19UKL 148,254.14S$ 521,102.56Total US$47,817,174.59UKL 410,550.57S$ 1,201,866.85Before the Arbitrator, apart from the aforementioned amount, interest on the outstanding amount was also claimed at the rate of 15% per annum on all claims for which invoices were not … US$ 10,909,772.19UKL 148,254.14S$ 521,102.56Total US$47,817,174.59UKL 410,550.57S$ 1,201,866.85 Before the Arbitrator, apart from the aforementioned amount, interest on the outstanding amount was also claimed at the rate of 15% per annum on all claims for which invoices were not
Southern Steel Ltd. and ors. Vs. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-08-2008
Reported in: AIR2008SC3143; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)974; 2008(6)BomCR806; [2008]143CompCas466(SC); (2008)4CompLJ300(SC); 2008CriLJ3960; RLW2009(1)SC116; 2008(7)SCALE493; (2008)5SCC762; 2008AIRSCW5294; 2008(5)SCC762; 2008CrLJ3960; 2008(3)AICLR228; 2008(4)Supreme319; 2008(3)ICC585; 2008(4)LH(SC)2564; 2008(5)AIRKarR445; 2008(6)AIRKarR49
Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'SICA') and, therefore, no legal proceedings of recovery of the outstanding amount could be initiated against the appellant company.4. It may be pertinent to mention that the purchases were made … were made holding out clear representation that the goods will be paid for. Ultimately, on non-payment of the outstanding amount, the respondent company initiated criminal proceedings against the appellant company by filing a criminal complaint under Section 138
Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sunway Constru ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR28(SC); 2008(2)AWC1230(SC); 2008(4)CTC348; (2008)8MLJ73(SC); 2008(3)SCALE603; (2008)5SCC222; 2008AIRSCW2059; 2008(3)CivilLJ81
and on flimsy pretext. He submitted that the respondent had promised and assured for immediate release of the outstanding amount for the works done, site establishment and material costs and it was agreed that the exercise of joint … the Delhi High Court. He submitted that the respondent had promised and assured for immediate release of the outstanding amount for the works done, site establishment and material costs and it was agreed that the exercise of joint
Janatha Textiles and ors. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-16-2008
Reported in: III(2008)BC372(SC); (2008)216CTR(SC)371; [2008]301ITR337(SC); JT2008(6)SC653; 2008(8)SCALE76
the proper procedure which has been laid down has not been followed by the respondent-department in recovering its outstanding amount. It was asserted on behalf of the respondent- department that the amount fetched in the public auction was … to make out the case that the proper procedure was not followed by the Respondent-department in recovering the outstanding amount - Appellants never had complained about fixing of the reserve price before holding of auction, though they were
M.K. Palia and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and anr ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Aug-26-2008
Reported in: AIR2009SC236; 2008(6)BomCR844; (2008)110BOMLR2657; 2008(11)SCALE629; 2008(2)LC1124(SC):2008AIRSCW7195
petition should not get unjust advantage over other lessees, therefore, we direct the appellant to pay the entire outstanding amount with 10% interest per annum from the date when the amount became due and payable along with penalty … after almost 23 years Held, Writ Petition cannot be allowed. However Supreme Court directed appellant to pay entire outstanding amount with 10% interest per annum from date when amount became due and payable along with penalty so that
Hover bars for counts · drag or use +/− to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free