Daily Archive: August 10, 2025

State Bar Councils can’t collect any fees over and above the statutory fees as “optional fee” for enrolment.  Justice JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, which was hearing a contempt petition moved by petitioner-in-person K. L. J. A. Kiran Babu.

State Bar Councils can’t collect any fees over and above the statutory fees as “optional fee” for enrolment. Justice JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, which was hearing a contempt petition moved by petitioner-in-person K. L. J. A. Kiran Babu.

[10/08, 14:04] Sekarreporter: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/bar-councils-cant-collect-any-amount-as-optional-fee-during-enrolment-supreme-court-300444 [10/08, 14:04] Sekarreporter: The Supreme Court recently clarified that the Bar Council of India or the State Bar Councils can’t collect any fees over and above the statutory fees as...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed, “When the Appellate Court finds that due to practical reasons, such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously, the Appellate Court must show special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence so as to make the appeal right, meaningful and effective. At the same time, the appellate courts can impose similar conditions when appeal is granted.

Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed, “When the Appellate Court finds that due to practical reasons, such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously, the Appellate Court must show special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence so as to make the appeal right, meaningful and effective. At the same time, the appellate courts can impose similar conditions when appeal is granted.

Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed, “When the Appellate Court finds that due to practical reasons, such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously, the Appellate Court must show special concern in the...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
“If the government is not able to spare a sum of Rs 25,42,21,775 for additional infrastructure to the high court in the state, it reflects the poor state of affairs prevailing in the state,” a bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan remarked.

“If the government is not able to spare a sum of Rs 25,42,21,775 for additional infrastructure to the high court in the state, it reflects the poor state of affairs prevailing in the state,” a bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan remarked.

[10/08, 11:48] Sekarreporter: “Follow Us MADURAI: Expressing displeasure at the state government’s delay in releasing funds to the tune of Rs 25.4 crore towards acquisition of 9.5 acres of temple land in front of...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Senior Standing Counsel for DGGI Ms. Revathi Manivannan defended the department’s position, arguing that successive attachment orders had been passed by the DGGI, which were not challenged by the petitioner. She submitted that the department had the authority to issue successive provisional attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act without any prohibition. Ms. Revathi Manivannan further informed the court that after issuing show cause notices to the petitioner and obtaining his reply, the department had subsequently passed orders for reversal of tax credit.

Senior Standing Counsel for DGGI Ms. Revathi Manivannan defended the department’s position, arguing that successive attachment orders had been passed by the DGGI, which were not challenged by the petitioner. She submitted that the department had the authority to issue successive provisional attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act without any prohibition. Ms. Revathi Manivannan further informed the court that after issuing show cause notices to the petitioner and obtaining his reply, the department had subsequently passed orders for reversal of tax credit.

[10/08, 11:01] Sekarreporter: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx1hJtZDSP82hhiW–kDTWtH9O7NQajRdA?si=1C822c5EK2kU3ErE [10/08, 11:01] Sekarreporter: Chennai, August 4: The Madras High Court has ruled that a provisional attachment order issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) in 2021 has automatically...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,  CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN WP No.10252 of 2025 and WMP No.11541 of 2025 K.Venkatesan Proprietor of  Wintel Marketing and Services  New No.55, Old No.21, 1st Floor, New Boag Road, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Petitioner(s) Vs 1.	The Principal Additional Director General     Directorate General of GST Intelligence     (DGGI) Chennai Zonal Unit     5th and 8th Floor, Tower II     BSNL Building, 16, Greams Road,     Chennai – 600 006. 2.	City Union Bank Limited     Thiruvanmiyur Branch      No.159, South Avenue,       Kamaraj Nagar, Thiruvalluvar

HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN WP No.10252 of 2025 and WMP No.11541 of 2025 K.Venkatesan Proprietor of Wintel Marketing and Services New No.55, Old No.21, 1st Floor, New Boag Road, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Principal Additional Director General Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) Chennai Zonal Unit 5th and 8th Floor, Tower II BSNL Building, 16, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. 2. City Union Bank Limited Thiruvanmiyur Branch No.159, South Avenue, Kamaraj Nagar, Thiruvalluvar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.08.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN WP No.10252 of 2025 and WMP No.11541 of...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Exit mobile version