Possession and Part Performance: Stamp Duty Compliance Is Non-Negotiable, Says Delhi High Court Calcutta High Court Declares Disciplinary Action as ‘Shockingly Disproportionate’, Orders Reduction in Rank for Petitioner No Profits, No Deduction — Section 33AC Must Precede 80-I Calculation in Shipping Tax Disputes: Bombay High Court Equity and Merit Must Coexist: Kerala High Court Rules on Regularisation of Temporary Forest Department Employees Lawyers Have No Right to Strike: Madras High Court in Contempt Case Encroachment is like committing a 'dacoity' against public resources: Delhi High Court. High Court Rejects Plea of Kindergarten School Against ESI Contribution Assessment Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Proceedings Citing 'Humanitarian Consideration' After Accused Marries Victim Procedural Delays Do Not Justify Condonation of Delay," Rules Delhi Consumer Commission in National Insurance Case Elements of Section 300 IPC Are Not Made Out: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Murder Conviction in 1987 Beating Case Registrar Cannot Be a Judge of His Own Cause: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Amendments MP High Court Upholds Prosecution for Forged Patta: 'Accountability in Public Office is Non-Negotiable Approval Must Be Granted for Altruistic Kidney Donations," Rules Madras High Court Grave Illegality in Appellate Remand: High Court of Rajasthan Orders Reassessment on Merits Commissioner Lacked Authority for Retrospective Cancellation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Educational Trusts' Registrations Intent is Crucial in Violent Crimes: Single Blow with Axe Does Not Imply Attempt to Murder," Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court

(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...

REPORTABLE # C.A. NO. 1129 OF 2000 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 8006 OF 1999) C.A. NO'S. 1130 TO 1139 OF 2000 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO'S. 11424, 12136, 12866, 13606, 16702, 17569, 18381, 8008, 8012 AND 8017 OF 1999 Docid 2000 LEJ Civil SC 523961

(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...

REPORTABLE # CRIMINAL APPEAL NO'S. 238-39 OF 1989 Docid 2000 LEJ Crim SC 690177

(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...

REPORTABLE # WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 248 OF 1988 W.P. (CRIMINAL) NO. 831-1990 AND SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 1492 OF 1988 Docid 2000 LEJ Crim SC 194880

(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...

REPORTABLE # C.A. NO. 96 OF 1998 Docid 2000 LEJ Civil SC 253858

(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...

REPORTABLE # NONE Docid 2000 LEJ Civil SC 626984

(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...

REPORTABLE # WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 888 OF 1996 Docid 2000 LEJ Civil SC 819941

(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...

REPORTABLE # APPEAL NO. 8747 OF 1999 Docid 2000 LEJ Civil SC 287967

(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...

REPORTABLE # C.A. NO'S. 2600-03 OF 1994 WITH C.A. NO. 3788 OF 1999 Docid 2000 LEJ Civil SC 294822

(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...

REPORTABLE # C.A. NO'S. 2695-2697 OF 1999 WITH S.L.P. (C) NO. 2835 OF 2000 (CC 793 OF 2000) Docid 2000 LEJ Civil SC 635725