(1)
TAPARIA TOOLS LTD. Vs.
JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-I ...Respondent D.D
23/03/2015
Facts: Taparia Tools Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessee') claimed deduction for upfront interest payments made to debenture holders, but the Assessing Officer (AO) spread the deduction over five years. The Assessee challenged this decision through appeals, leading to the current case.Issues:Whether the upfront interest payment should be allowed as a deduction in the first yea...
(2)
LISAMMA ANTONY AND OTHERS Vs.
KARTHIYAYANI AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
20/03/2015
Facts:Plaintiff Annamma Thomas filed a suit for injunction against the Defendants, alleging trespass and attempted demolition of property boundaries.The trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, confirming their ownership and granting an injunction against the Defendants.The Defendants appealed the decision, and the first appellate court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the decree but af...
(3)
ANIRUDH KUMAR Vs.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
20/03/2015
Facts:The appellant, a resident of a building, filed a writ petition against the owners of a pathological lab and the concerned authorities due to the lab's adverse effects on the residents.The lab had been issued a Regularization Certificate by the Municipal Corporation under Mixed Land Use regulations, even before the Master Plan Delhi 2021 came into force.Issues:Whether the appellant'...
(4)
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs.
STANGEN IMMUNO DIAGNOSTICS .....Respondent D.D
19/03/2015
Facts: The respondent, Stangen Immuno Diagnostics, claimed the benefit of exemption/concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 175/86-CE for its products bearing the brand name 'Stangen.' The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, issued a show cause notice alleging that the use of the brand name 'Stangen' belonged to Dr. K. Anji Reddy of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories...
(5)
PRAKASH CHAND MEENA AND OTHERS Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
19/03/2015
Facts:Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of PTI Gr. II and PTI Gr. III, each with specific educational qualifications.The advertisement clearly delineated the qualifications required for both posts, with a special note stating that separate applications had to be submitted for each.Subsequently, the RPSC declared can...
(6)
SANJIV KUMAR Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent D.D
19/03/2015
Facts:The appellant, Sanjiv Kumar, was convicted under Sections 395, 450, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code for robbery and wrongful confinement.Sanjiv Kumar, along with others, trespassed into a forex firm's premises and committed robbery, falsely implicating a person in the case.The trial court convicted Sanjiv Kumar, which was affirmed by the High Court but with a reduced sentence.During th...
(7)
DHROPADABAI AND OTHERS Vs.
TECHNOCRAFT TOOLINGS .....Respondent D.D
19/03/2015
Facts:The legal heirs of Ambadas Lahane filed an application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, after Lahane, an employee, died due to a chest pain at his workplace.The employer, Technocraft Toolings, contested the claim, arguing that Lahane was covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act), and therefore, the legal heirs were not entitled to ...
(8)
HMT WATCHES LTD. Vs.
M.A. ABIDA AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
19/03/2015
Facts:HMT Watches Ltd. filed criminal complaints against M.A. Abida for dishonoring 57 cheques issued to discharge outstanding liabilities.The Respondent claimed the cheques were given as security and challenged the proceedings in the High Court.The High Court quashed the cases based on the Respondent's factual defenses.Issues:Whether the High Court's quashing of the cases based on dispu...
(9)
VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY Vs.
GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
19/03/2015
Facts: The case involves the removal of a chairperson or elected office bearer from a cooperative society through a motion of no-confidence. The relevant statutes and bylaws did not contain specific provisions regarding such removal.Issues:Whether an office bearer can be removed through a motion of no-confidence in the absence of specific provisions in the statutes or bylaws.What procedure should ...