Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.42 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
M/S Radha Krishan Industries vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 April, 2021
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/11/2024 at 21:21:02
came to be propounded by the Supreme Court in Radha Krishna
Industries v State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr [(2021) 6 SCC
771]:-
Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007
"30. The decision of this Court in Raman Tech Process Engg Co and Anr v
Solanki Traders was concerned with the power of a civil court under Order 38
Rule 5 of the CPC to order an attachment before judgment. In that case,
proceedings had been instituted by the respondent, for the recovery of moneys due
for the supply of material to the appellant. The plaintiff moved an application
under Order 38 Rule 5, for a direction to the defendants to furnish security for the
suit claim and if they failed to do so, for attachment before judgment. This Court
described the power of attachment before judgment in the following terms:
Valerius Industries vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2019
In Valerius Industries v Union of India, the Gujarat High Court laid down the
principles for the construction of Section 83 of the SGST/CGST Act. The High
Court noted that a provisional attachment on the basis of a subjective satisfaction,
absent any cogent or credible material, constitutes malice in law. It further
outlined the principles for the exercise of the power:
M/S Jay Ambey Filament Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 12 October, 2020
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/11/2024 at 21:21:02
provisional attachment must be based on credible information that the attachment
is necessary. This opinion cannot be formed based on "imaginary grounds,
wishful thinking, howsoever laudable that may be." The High Court further held,
that on his opinion being challenged, the competent officer must be able to show
the material on the basis of which the belief is formed.
M/S Patran Steel Rolling Mill vs Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, ... on 20 December, 2018
In Patran Steel Rolling Mill v Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, the
Gujarat High Court cited two instances in which provisional attachment would be
apposite, these being where the assessee is a 'fly by night operator' and if the
assessee will not be able to pay its dues after assessment.
1