Regulatory Law

Supreme Court Upholds SEBI’s Regulatory Authority in Adani Group Case (2024)

/ Judicial Review, Regulatory Law, SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, SEBI Act, 1992, SEBI's Regulatory Authority, Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, Securities Law

Supreme Court Upholds SEBI’s Regulatory Authority in Adani Group Case (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: The scope of judicial review over the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) regulatory domain and the validity of SEBI’s regulations. CASE TYPE: Securities Law, Regulatory Law Case Name: Vishal Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 3 January […]

Supreme Court Upholds SEBI’s Regulatory Authority in Adani Group Case (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pet-Coke Allocation Based on Initial Capacity: Sanvira Industries vs. Rain CII Carbon (2023)

/ Environmental Law, Environmental Law with M.C. Mehta case, Foreign Trade Policy, Pollution Control, Regulatory Law, Regulatory Law with DGFT Notifications

Supreme Court Upholds Pet-Coke Allocation Based on Initial Capacity: Sanvira Industries vs. Rain CII Carbon (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the allocation of imported raw pet-coke (RPC) should be based on the production capacity of a company at the time of the Supreme Court’s initial order or on a later enhanced capacity. CASE TYPE: Environmental Law,

Supreme Court Upholds Pet-Coke Allocation Based on Initial Capacity: Sanvira Industries vs. Rain CII Carbon (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pet-Coke Allocation Based on Original Capacity: Sanvira Industries vs. Rain CII Carbon (2023)

/ Environmental Law, Environmental Law with M.C. Mehta case, Import Policy, Import/Export Law, Import/Export Law with DGFT Notification, Pollution Control, Regulatory Law, Regulatory Law with Consent to Operate, Resource Allocation

Supreme Court Upholds Pet-Coke Allocation Based on Original Capacity: Sanvira Industries vs. Rain CII Carbon (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the allocation of imported raw pet-coke (RPC) should be based on the production capacity of a company at the time of the Supreme Court’s initial order, or on a later claimed enhanced capacity. CASE TYPE: Environmental

Supreme Court Upholds Pet-Coke Allocation Based on Original Capacity: Sanvira Industries vs. Rain CII Carbon (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Import Condition for IGST Exemption in Advance Authorisation Scheme: Union of India vs. Cosmo Films Limited (28 April 2023)

/ Advance Authorisation Scheme, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dipankar Datta, Foreign Trade Policy, Foreign Trade Policy with Paragraph 4.13, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Import Condition for IGST Exemption in Advance Authorisation Scheme LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of ‘pre-import condition’ for availing IGST exemption under the Advance Authorisation scheme. CASE TYPE: Taxation Law, Foreign Trade Policy Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Cosmo Films Limited [Judgment Date]: 28 April 2023 Date of the Judgment: 28

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Import Condition for IGST Exemption in Advance Authorisation Scheme: Union of India vs. Cosmo Films Limited (28 April 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Additional License for Processed Iron Ore Exports: Chowgule & Company Limited vs. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade (04 November 2022)

/ Applicability of Promissory Estoppel, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Exim Policy 1988-1991, Exim Policy 1990-1993, Export Incentives, Foreign Trade Policy, Judges, Krishna Murari, M.R. Shah, Promissory Estoppel

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Additional License for Processed Iron Ore Exports LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an exporter is entitled to an additional license based on the export of processed iron ore when the export occurred during a period where the policy specifically excluded “Minerals and Ores” from eligibility. CASE TYPE: Foreign Trade Policy/Export Incentives Case

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Additional License for Processed Iron Ore Exports: Chowgule & Company Limited vs. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade (04 November 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refund under Foreign Trade Policy: Sandoz vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 1

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 3, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 5A, Deemed Exports, Dinesh Maheshwari, Foreign Trade Policy, Foreign Trade Policy with Para 8.3, Foreign Trade Policy with Para 8.5, Judges, Krishna Murari

Supreme Court Clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refund under Foreign Trade Policy Date of the Judgment: January 4, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 1 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Krishna Murari, J. Can a supplier of goods to an Export Oriented Unit (EOU) claim a refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) under the Foreign Trade

Supreme Court clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refund under Foreign Trade Policy: Sandoz vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 1 Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Terminal Excise Duty refunds for Export Oriented Units and Domestic Tariff Area Suppliers: Sandoz vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 82 (4 January 2022)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 5A, Deemed Exports, Dinesh Maheshwari, Foreign Trade Policy, Foreign Trade Policy with Para 6.11, Foreign Trade Policy with Para 8.3(c), Judges, Krishna Murari

Supreme Court Clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refunds for EOUs and DTA Suppliers LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Export Oriented Units (EOUs) and Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) suppliers are entitled to refunds of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) on goods supplied to EOUs, and which authority should process these claims. CASE TYPE: Tax Law, Foreign Trade Policy Case Name:

Supreme Court clarifies Terminal Excise Duty refunds for Export Oriented Units and Domestic Tariff Area Suppliers: Sandoz vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 82 (4 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refunds for Export-Oriented Units and Domestic Tariff Area Suppliers: Sandoz Private Limited vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 1

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 5A, Cenvat Credit, Deemed Exports, Dinesh Maheshwari, Foreign Trade Policy, Foreign Trade Policy with Para 6.11, Foreign Trade Policy with Para 8.3, Judges, Krishna Murari

Supreme Court Clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refunds for Export-Oriented Units and Domestic Tariff Area Suppliers Date of the Judgment: January 4, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 1 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Krishna Murari, J. Can Export Oriented Units (EOUs) directly claim refunds for Terminal Excise Duty (TED) on goods procured from Domestic Tariff

Supreme Court Clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refunds for Export-Oriented Units and Domestic Tariff Area Suppliers: Sandoz Private Limited vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 1 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Restrictions on Merchanting Trade of Banned Goods: Akshay N Patel vs. Reserve Bank of India (2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 with Section 10(4), Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 with Section 11(1), Foreign Trade Policy, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Regulatory Law, Reserve Bank of India, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Restrictions on Merchanting Trade of Banned Goods: Akshay N Patel vs. Reserve Bank of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) can restrict merchanting trade transactions (MTT) for goods whose import or export is banned under India’s Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Regulatory Law,

Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Restrictions on Merchanting Trade of Banned Goods: Akshay N Patel vs. Reserve Bank of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Import Restrictions on Pulses: Union of India vs. Agricas LLP (26 August 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 77, Dinesh Maheshwari, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 with Section 3, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 with Section 9A, Foreign Trade Policy, Judges, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Upholds Import Restrictions on Pulses: Union of India vs. Agricas LLP (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Central Government can impose import restrictions on pulses under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act), or if such restrictions must exclusively adhere to the procedure under Section 9A of the

Supreme Court Upholds Import Restrictions on Pulses: Union of India vs. Agricas LLP (26 August 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Use of ‘Architect’ Title Under Architects Act: Council of Architecture vs. Mukesh Goyal (2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Architects Act, 1972, Architects Act, 1972 with Section 37, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Registration of Architects, Regulatory Bodies, Regulatory Law, Service Regulations

Supreme Court Clarifies Use of ‘Architect’ Title Under Architects Act: Council of Architecture vs. Mukesh Goyal (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 37 of the Architects Act, 1972, prohibits individuals not registered with the Council of Architecture from practicing architecture or merely restricts the use of the title “Architect”. CASE TYPE: Regulatory/Service Law Case Name: Council

Supreme Court Clarifies Use of ‘Architect’ Title Under Architects Act: Council of Architecture vs. Mukesh Goyal (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Export Incentive Scheme: Nola Ram Dulichand Dal Mills vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Deepak Gupta, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 with Section 5, Foreign Trade Policy, Hemant Gupta, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Export Incentive Scheme: Nola Ram Dulichand Dal Mills vs. Union of India (2020) Date of the Judgment: February 14, 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 149 Judges: Deepak Gupta, J. and Hemant Gupta, J. Can a company purchasing goods from a 100% export-oriented unit claim export incentives? The Supreme Court addressed this question in

Supreme Court Clarifies Export Incentive Scheme: Nola Ram Dulichand Dal Mills vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top