Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
Ravi Thakur vs M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Finance ... on 13 October, 2020 cites

Damodar S.Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H on 3 May, 2010

5 Learned counsel for the pe titioner has also prayed for imposing the lesser amount of compounding fee instead of 15% of cheque amount. It is also submitted by him that considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010)5 SCC 663, as clarified by the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain and another (2014)10 SCC 690 wherein it has been held that Court may reduce compounding fee for given facts and circumstances of a particular case, present case is a fit case of exemption of compounding fee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 5512 - Full Document

M.P. State Legal Service Authority vs Prateek Jain And Anr on 10 September, 2014

5 Learned counsel for the pe titioner has also prayed for imposing the lesser amount of compounding fee instead of 15% of cheque amount. It is also submitted by him that considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010)5 SCC 663, as clarified by the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain and another (2014)10 SCC 690 wherein it has been held that Court may reduce compounding fee for given facts and circumstances of a particular case, present case is a fit case of exemption of compounding fee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 359 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1