(1)
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ........ Vs.
J.L. GUPTA AND OTHERS ......Respondent D.D
16/02/2000
Facts:Respondents, ex-employees of the State of Punjab, retired before 31st March 1985.Pensionary benefits were calculated based on rules at the time of their retirement.A notification/order on 9th July 1985 decided to treat certain allowances as dearness pay for pensionary benefits.Respondents claimed the benefit of this notification and filed a writ petition when not granted.Issues:Applicability...
(2)
STATE OF U.P. ........ Vs.
ASHOK DIXIT AND ANOTHER ........Respondent D.D
16/02/2000
Facts: The incident involved firing on the first floor, witnessed by PW-2, a resident of the deceased Dr. Dubey's house. Accused-"A" was known to PW-2, while accused-"C" was not. Material omissions in PW-2's statement raised questions about the identification of the accused. Accused-"A" was a regular visitor to Dr. Dubey's house.Issues: The key issues i...
(3)
SUNIL FULCHAND SHAH ........ Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
16/02/2000
Facts: The case involves questions related to the computation of the period of preventive detention under Sections 10 and 12 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Additionally, it addresses the effect of parole on the detention period and the authority of the Supreme Court to order arrest and detention following an erroneous release by the High C...
(4)
TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD. ........ Vs.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, BHUBANESWAR, ORISSA ........Respondent D.D
16/02/2000
Facts:TISCO (TATA Iron and Steel Company Ltd.) imported equipment and documentation from Siderugia National of Portugal.SNP (Siderugia National Portugal) canceled its investment plan and sold unused equipment to TISCO.Contracts MD 301 and MD 302 were entered into between SNP and TISCO, relating to technical documentation and sale of equipment.Issues:Valuation of technical documentation and equipme...
(5)
TRUSTEES OF H.E.H. THE NIZAM'S SUPPLEMENTAL FAMILY TRUST ........Appellant Vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ........Respondent D.D
16/02/2000
FACTS:The case involves the H.E.H. the Nizam's Second Supplemental Family Trust. The trustees filed an income tax return for the Assessment Year 1962-63 along with an application for a refund. The Income Tax Officer did not respond to the refund application, leading the trustees to remind him. Later, a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was received by the trustees, initiating pr...
(6)
ALMITRA H. PATEL AND ANOTHER ........ Vs.
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
15/02/2000
Facts:The historic city of Delhi was observed to be one of the most polluted cities globally.Previous directions issued four years ago to address pollution and waste management were not effectively implemented.The present writ petition focuses on solid waste disposal in Delhi.A committee, headed by Mr. Asim Burmon, was constituted to examine and suggest measures for urban solid waste management.Is...
(7)
BSI LTD. AND ANOTHER, ETC. ........ Vs.
GIFT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER, ETC. ........Respondent
Relevant D.D
15/02/2000
Facts:Cheques issued by the appellant were dishonoured.Notice demanding payment issued, and when not paid within 15 days, a complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act.Companies approached the Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) seeking declaration as sick companies under SICA.Argument raised that during BIFR proceedings, no prosecution can be maintained.Issues:Whether the offen...
(8)
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ........ Vs.
BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION ........Respondent D.D
15/02/2000
Facts:The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax, challenges the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.The respondent, Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation, is an Indian resident company involved in the business of exporting tea.Issues:The disallowance of the respondent's claim for weighted deduction under Section 35-B.The claimed expenditure of Rs. 1,95,935/- i...
(9)
JAIDRATH SINGH AND ANOTHER ........ Vs.
JIVENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
15/02/2000
Facts:The election held on 22nd May 1995, had three candidates: Jivendra, Manvendra, and Smt. Gayatri Verma.None of the candidates secured the required quota of 16 first preference votes.Jivendra declared elected after drawing lots as no candidate secured the quota.Issues:The correctness of the election result, especially regarding the drawing of lots when none of the candidates obtained the quota...