• Judgments-C

  • A | B | D | E | F | G | H | I | | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z  


    • Calcutta Discount Company Limited Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Companies District, And Another- Civil Appeal No.-197 Of 1954-Sc-01.11.1960-Citation-1961-AIR-372=1961-SCR-2-241- Income Tax Act- Assessment- Reassessment- "omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Cardamom Marketing Corporation & Anr. Vs. State Of Kerala & Ors.- Civil Appeal No. 4453 Of 2008 - Sc - 01.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • C.C.E. v Raghuvar (India) Ltd-(2000) 5 SCC 299- Issue, period of limitation in ID Act/ Labour Cases- Held, “Any law or stipulation prescribing a period of limitation to do or not to do a thing after the expiry of period so stipulated has the consequence of creation and destruction of rights and, therefore, must be specifically enacted and prescribed therefor. It is not for the courts to import any specific period of limitation by implication, where there is really none, though courts may always hold when any such exercise of power had the effect of disturbing rights of a citizen that it should be exercised within a reasonable period.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Central Bank of India SC ST Employees Welfare Association [Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association- Civil Appeal No.-209 Of 2015-SC-08.01.2016- Citation-2015-12-SCC-308- Review Petition- A request for a revisit of Order cannot be entertained ad nauseam [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Central Board Of Trustee Vs. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal [EPFAT]- W.P (C) No. 4312 Of 2004- DelHC-04.01.2018- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [RPFC]- Employees‟ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal- Employees‟ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Full PDF Judgment
    • Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr (1986 SCR (2) 278)- - Corporate, Business & Commercial Law-  Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness”.
    • Central Secretariat Club Vs. Geetam Singh- W.P –C- No. 17474 of 2004-DelHC-02.11.2017- Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I Versus Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337/1995, Judgment Dated: 15.04.2013, Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.: Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 2013(8) SCC 234- 2013(7) JT 450- 2013(5) SCALE 710- 2013(5) SLT 697- Environmental Law- Environment- Convention biology, What is?- Held, Convention biology is the science that studies bio-diversity and the dynamics of extinction (Para 51)- HELD: No specie can survive on the brink of extinction indefinitely and the probabilities associated with a critically endangered specie make their extinction a matter of time. Convention biology is the science that studies bio-diversity and the dynamics of extinction. Eco-system approach to protecting endangered species emphasises on recovery, and complement and support eco-system based conservation approach. Reintroduction of an animal or plant into the habitat from where it has become extinct is also known as ex-situ conservation (Para 51) [Full PDF Judgment
    • Centre For PIL Vs. Union Of India & Ors. , Writ Petition (Civil) 171 Of 2003, Date Of Judgment: 16/09/2003, Bench: S. Rajendra Babu & G.P.Mathur, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Challenge to Government of India (GOI) policy decision in regard to selling of majority shares of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) to private parties without Parliamentary approval or sanction as being contrary to and violative of the provisions of the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1974, the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976 and Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining India Limited and all the Undertakings in India for Caltex India Limited) Act, 1977.- Oil & Natural Gas [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Centre For PIL Vs. Union Of India & Ors., Appeal (Civil) 2485 Of 1999, Date Of Judgment: 19.10.2000  , Bench: S.N.Hegde, S.S.M.Quadri, S.P.Bharucha,JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Challenge to Government of India (GOI) policy decision in regard to offering of its oil fields on joint venture- Agencies involved-  Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) & the Oil India Limited (OIL).- Oil & Natural Gas [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Centre for PIL & Anr. Versus Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (C) No. 348 OF 2010,, Civil Appeal NO.733 OF 2012, Judgment Dated- 03.03.2011, Bench-  S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, K.S. Panikar Radhakrishnan, J, & Swatanter Kumar, J, Supreme Court Of India- (2011) 4 SCC 1- Quashing- Judicial Review- Appointment- the Post, Central Vigilance Commissioner [CVC]-  Challenge to policy decision of the Govt.- Institution- Institution is more important than an individual- The decision to recommend has got to be an informed decision- Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India giving rise to a substantial question of law of public importance as to the legality of the appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner under Section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003- The said appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas quashed [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Centre For PIL Vs. Union Of India- Appeal (Civil) 681 Of 2004, Date Of Judgment: 22.10.2013, Bench: K. S. Radhakrishnan, Dipak Misra,,JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Writ petition seeking constitution of an independent Expert/Technical Committee to evaluate the harmful effects of soft drinks on human health, particularly on the health of the children [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Challapalli Sugars Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1975) 98 ITR 167, Held, the ICAI was a recognized authority on accounting principles and executive instructions had to be viewed from that perspective.
    • Chamoli District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana & Ors.- Civil Appeal No.2265 Of 2011- SC-17.05.2016- Labour Industrial Relations Laws- observance of principles of natural justice was not a mere formality in disciplinary proceedings [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai, Criminal Appeal No. 1627 Of 2007, Date Of Judgment: 27/11/2007, Bench-Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Aftab Alam, Supreme Court Of India-Citation-(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 316= 2008 AIR 530= 2007(12 )SCR 577=  2007(13)SCALE 402=2008(1) JT 78 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Chand Devi Daga Versus Manju K. Humatani-SC-03.09.2017- Criminal Appeal No. 1860 OF 2017-SC-03.11.2014- S-247, 249, 256 CrPC- Legal heirs- Right to prosecute Criminal Complaint- Locus and competence of Legal heir to be able to prosecute the criminal complaint [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Chander Bhan versus State, in Bail Application No.1627/2008-  (2008) 151 DLT 691-Section 498-A- rampant misuse [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Chander Sen- [Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur Vs. Chander Sen]- Civil Appeal Nos. 166870 of 1974- SC- 16.07-1986- (1986) 3 SCC 567- 1986 AIR 1753- HUF- Hindu Succession Act 1956- Property of father who dies intestate-Whether devolves on son, who separated by partition from his father, in individual capacity or Karta of his HUF- After the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, property which devolves on an individual from a paternal ancestor does not become HUF property but the inheritance is in the nature of self-acquired property unless an HUF exists at the time of the devolution- Merely on account of inheritance of ancestral property an HUF does not come into existence [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Chhatravas, Chandra Arya Vidya Mandir  Vs. The Director, Deptt Of Women And Child Dev. & ANR.- WP(C) 9590 of 2009-DelHC-03.03.2014- Statutory Compliance- Orphanage, Children‟s Home, Observation Home, Special Home, Shelter Home- Orphanages and other Charitable Homes (Supervision and Control) Act, 1960- Women and Children Institutions Licensing Act, 1956- Children Act, 1960- Juvenile Justice Act, 1986- Registration of Orphanages envisaged by Section 34(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P., (1963) 3 SCR 412- Appeal, Review, Revision- Held, "It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of s. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may however indicate some cases of this kind, which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be : where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished of produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; and in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of s. 439(4)." [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Chitra Sharma Versus Airline Allied Services Ltd, DelHC-30.10.2017- LPA 142 of 2017- Service Matter Writ- Termination of a sick employee of an Airline [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Chrisomar Corporation Vs. Mjr Steels Private Limited - Civil Appeal No. 1930 Of 2008 - SC- 14.09.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. Versus Union Of India And Ors., T.C.(C) No.98 Of 2012, Judgment Dated: 18.07.2013, Bench: Altamas Kabir, CJI, Vikramajit Sen, Anil R. Dave, JJ, Supreme Court Of India (2014) 2 SCC 305- The major areas of challenge to the various state govt. notifications concerning NEET are: (i) The powers of the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India to regulate the process of admissions into medical colleges and institutions run by the State Governments, private individuals (aided and unaided), educational institutions run by religious and linguistic minorities, in the guise of laying down minimum standards of medical education, as provided for in Section 19A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. (ii) Whether the introduction of one National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) offends the fundamental right guaranteed to any citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business? (iii)Whether NEET violates the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, as guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution? (iv) Whether subordinate legislation, such as the right to frame Regulations, flowing from a power given under a statute, can have an overriding effect over the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution? (v) Whether the exclusion of Entry 11 from the State List and the introduction of Entry 25 in the Concurrent List by the Constitution Forty Second (Amendment) Act, 1976, makes any difference as far as the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India under Section 33 of the 1956 Act and those framed by the Dental Council of India under Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948, are concerned, and whether such Regulations would have primacy over State legislation on the same subject? (vi) Whether the aforesaid questions have been adequately answered in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481], and in the subsequent decisions in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka [(2003) 6 SCC 697], P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC 537] and Indian Medical Association Vs. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC 179]? and (vii)Whether the views expressed by the Constitution Bench comprised of Five Judges in Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. [(1999) 7 SCC 120] have any impact on the issues raised in this batch of matters?- Held, “23. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, in my opinion, it cannot be said that introduction of the NEET would either violate any of the fundamental or legal rights of the petitioners or even adversely affect the medical profession. In my opinion, introduction of the NEET would ensure more transparency and less hardship to the students eager to join the medical profession.”. This judgment was recalled vide the judgment, "Medical Council Of India Versus. Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors., Review Petition (C)Nos.2159-2268 Of 2013 And Review Petition (C) NOS.2048-2157 OF 2013 IN TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NOS.98-105, 107-108,110-139, 142, 144-145 OF 2012 & 1-5, 7-25, 28-49, 53, 58-73, 75-76 & 107-108 OF 2013, Judgment Dated: 11.04.2016, Bench: Anil R. Dave, A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R.Banumathi, JJ, Supreme Court Of India" [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Cipla Ltd.- Union Of India & Ors. M/S. Cipla Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 329 Of 2005, Judgment Dated: 21.10.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & R.K. Agrawal, JJ, Supreme Court Of India: Quashing Of Central Govt. Notification, Fixing Retail Price Of Drug Formulations- Pharma Companies [Full PDF Judgment].
    • CJAR-Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms Vs. Union of India- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 Of 2017-3JBSC-01.12.2017- Sought a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction of similar nature to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Chief Justice of India to investigate in the matter of alleged conspiracy and payment of bribes for procuring favourable order in a matter pending before Supreme Court- Held, “8) The petition is not only wholly frivolous, but contemptuous, unwarranted, aims at scandalizing the highest judicial system of the country, without any reasonable basis and filed in an irresponsible manner, that too by a body of persons professing to espouse the cause of accountability. What an irony of fate, the petitioner has itself forgotten its accountability and filing of such petition may entail in ultimate debarment of such petitioners from filing so-called public interest litigation which in fact has caused more injury to cause of public than sub serving it.- In the end, the Petition dismissed with a Cost of Rs.25,00,000/-. [Full PDF Judgment].
    • CJ Karira [CPIO CBI Vs. CJ Karira - W.P. - C -7439 Of 2012 - DelHC 07.09.2017] [Full PDF Judgment].
    • C.K. Sasankan Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.- (2009) 11 SCC 60- Rate of Interest- S-24 CPC- The principles and factors to be kept in mind by the adjudicating court while awarding interest under S-24 CPC- It was also held that in ascertaining the rate of interest the courts of law can take judicial notice of both inflation as also a fall in the bank rate of interest [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Clerks' Association of Advocates- WP PIL No.-200 of 2016- Cases relied upon: Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Clerks Association & others Vs. UOI, Writ Petition No.430 of 2003- Held: "The advocates’ clerks are the integral part of the justice delivery system... It is the need of the hour that effective steps should be taken by the State Government to ameliorate their grievances" [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Comed Chemicals Ltd. Versus C.N. Ramchand, Arbitration Petition No. 17/2007, Judgment Dated: 06/11/2008, Bench: C.K. Thakker, J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 2009(1) R.A.J. 310: 2009 AIR(SC) 494: 2008(15) SCR 567: 2009(1) SCC 91: 2008(11) JT 547: 2008(13) SCALE 717: 2008(9) SLT 17: 2008(4) ArbLR 207- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Sections 11(9), 2(1)(f), (1)(b) & 10- International commercial arbitration- What is; appointment of arbitrator by court, when permissible; existence of arbitration clause, scope- Applicant-company doing business in chemicals in the field of bio-technology- To expand the business it entered into a MOU with respondent for development of products in the field of bio-industries and manufacturing and marketing such products- Respondent appointed as Director (Technical) and allotted 40% equity shares in the subsidiary Company- Over and above that, he was to be paid salary and other benefits in lieu of services rendered by him- MOU providing that respondent will work full time with the company at least for next eight years from the date of signing of agreement- Allegation of company that respondent did not take interest in work and failed to attend Board Meetings and ultimately resigned before completion of work assigned to him in violation of agreement and also instigated other subordinate staff workers to leave the organization- In view of large investment by company, it refused to accept the resignation of respondent- Clause 12 of agreement provides that if there be any dispute pertaining to meaning of this MoU or of any nature, will be solved and decided by appointing an independent Arbitrator acceptable to all the parties and if not solved by him can be referred to court of law and for which the jurisdiction will be Vadodara- Failure of parties to agree on a name of arbitrator- Whether arbitration clause is existing and application for appointment of arbitrator by applicant-company before court is maintainable- Held, on facts, yes- If respondent is engaged by applicant Company to perform functions which are inextricably linked with functions which could be undertaken by a businessman or by a Company and such activities form an integral part of his activities, there is element of `commerce'- In that case, the provisions of Act would clearly apply- In the instant case, it is a case of International commercial arbitration and covered by clause of MOU between parties- Plea that there is no International Commercial Arbitration, unsustainable- Any dispute between the applicant- Company and the respondent would, therefore, be covered by Clause 12 of the Agreement which provides for arbitration- Hence, the contention that respondent was merely an employee and there was no element of business, trade or commerce has no substance and must be rejected- Since there is a dispute between parties, it has to be decided by arbitrator- As relevant clause provide for a sole arbitrator, hence, only one arbitrator to be appointed.- HELD: I find no substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no arbitration clause in the Agreement. Clause 12 of the agreement which provides for arbitration reads thus;- If there be any dispute pertaining to meaning of this MoU or of any nature, will be solved and decided by appointing an independent Arbitrator acceptable to all the parties and if not solved by him can be referred to court of law and for which the jurisdiction will be Vadodara.- Bare reading of the above clause leaves no room for doubt that it is an `arbitration clause' and expressly declares that any dispute pertaining to MoU would be solved and decided by an arbitrator.- I am also unable to uphold the argument of the learned counsel that there is no International Commercial Arbitration. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no `commercial' element in the agreement and what was agreed between the parties was to provide `technical know-how' and `expertise' to the applicant-Company for which the respondent was to be paid `fees'.- It has not been disputed by the applicant-Company that if the contract is merely of an employment and the relationship between the parties is of master and servant, the matter cannot be referred to Arbitral Tribunal. But if the respondent is engaged by the applicant Company to perform functions which are inextricably linked with functions which could be undertaken by a businessman or by a Company and such activities form an integral part of his activities, there is element of `commerce'. In that case, the provisions of the Act would clearly apply.- In the instant case, the respondent has been appointed as Director (Technical) and has been allotted 40% equity shares in the subsidiary Company (Comed Bio-Tech Ltd.). Over and above that, he was to be paid salary and other benefits in lieu of services rendered by him. Para 3 of the Agreement required the respondent to undertake certain responsibilities.- Thus, from settled legal position as also from the functions to be performed by the respondent, I hold that the respondent was working in dual or double capacity, i.e. (i) as an employee, and (ii) as a Director. In the later capacity, however, he was the Chief Executive Officer of the subsidiary Company and had to look after all operational matters. The functions to be performed by him were supervisory and related to policy making decisions in the affairs of the Company, as observed by this Court in Ram Pershad. Any dispute between the applicant-Company and the respondent would, therefore, be covered by Clause 12 of the Agreement which provides for arbitration. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent was merely an employee and there was no element of business, trade or commerce has no substance and must be rejected.- For the foregoing reasons, in my opinion, the application filed by the Company must be allowed by holding that the case is covered by clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. It is a case of International Commercial Arbitration and is covered by Clause 12 of MoU. Since there is a dispute between the parties, it has to be decided by an arbitrator. The clause extracted hereinabove provides for an arbitrator i.e. sole arbitrator and hence only one arbitrator should be appointed. I, therefore, appoint Mr. Madhukar Fanse, retired Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad as the sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [State of West Bengal Vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, W.B.]- 2010(3) SCC 571- Investigation- Independent Agency- CBI- Parameters laid down therein for investigation to be handed-over to an independent agency- Mere filing of charge-sheet would not preclude the power of the High Court to hand-over investigation to an independent agency [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Common Cause Vs. Union of India-SC-13.05.2015-W.P.197 of 2004-Ads-Government Advertisement Guidelines, 2014 [PDF Judgment].
    • Common Cause Vs. Union of India- SC-28.11.2017-Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1088 Of 2017- Quashing- Appointment- CBI- Challenge to Appointment of CBI Director- Violation of Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 cited [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Poddar Cement P. Limited (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC)- The Court applied the doctrine of “updating construction‟, which required acknowledgment of the emergent trends in business, technology and law.
    • Common Cause Vs. Union of India and Ors., _____- (2016) 11 SCC 455- Mineral Law- What is “In the interest of mineral development” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Common Cause Vs. Union Of India, Writ Petition(Civil) No.13 Of 2003, Judgment Dated-13.05.2015, Bench- Rajan Gogoi & Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Supreme Court Of India- Constitution Of India- Article-32- Public Interest Litigation- Writ Of Mandamus- Issue – Implementation of Statute, namely, Government Advertisement (Content Regulations) Guidelines, 2014.- The Five Principles Of Content Regulation: (i) Advertising Campaigns to be related to Government responsibilities; (ii) Advertisement materials should be presented in an objective, fair and accessible manner and be designed to meet the objectives of the campaign; (iii) Advertisement materials should be objective and not directed at promoting political interests of ruling party; (iv) Advertisement Campaigns be justified and undertaken in an efficient and cost-effective manner; Government advertising must comply with legal requirements and financial regulations and procedures [Full PDF Judgment].
    • CBI Vs. Coodil Ravikumar & 9 Ors.- In The Special Court At Bombay - Special Case No. 2 Of 1994 In C.B.I. Case No.R.C.52-A-92-Bom-BomHC-25.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Competition Commission Of India Vs. Oriental Rubber Industries Private Limited- LPA 607/2016- DHC-24.05.2018- A lawyer can accompany his client to the Director General, Competition Commission of India (DG, CCI), but he cannot sit with his client while his questioning: Delhi High Court Order Dated-24.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Consumer Education & Research Centre Vs. UOI- 1995 AIR 922- 1995 SCC (3)      42-SC-27.01.1995- Human tragedy of modem industry- Occupational accidents and diseases- Most serious forms of economic waste- Occupational health hazards- Diseases to the workmen employed in asbestos industries [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Consumer Protection Bar Association [State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors. Versus All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association- Civil Appeal No.(S). 2740 Of 2007- SC-18.05.2018- Paucity of infrastructure in the Consumer For a [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Crossword Entertainment Private Limited Vs. Central Board Of Film Certification- DelHC-11.12.2017- W.P.(C) 11992 of 2016 – Media & Entertainment- Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)- Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal (FCAT)- Cuts/Modifications/Excisions [Full PDF Judgment].
    • CTO- Anti Evasion-I, Kota Vs. M/S Anand Minerals Pvt Ltd- S.B. Sales Tax Revision -Reference No. 318 of 2011-RajHC-02.08.2017- Directions given to various Department- The officers present in the Court: Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate- Addl. Commissioner (Narcotics)- IG, ACB- S.P. CBI- Director, Revenue Intelligence- Asstt Director, IB- DG, Income Tax (Inv.)- Addl. DG, GST- Addl. Commissioner GST- Asstt Director, DRI- Commissioner, Customs [Full PDF Judgment].
    • CVS Insurance And Investments Vs. Vipul It Infrasoft Pvt. Ltd.-DelHC-08.12.2017- ARB.P. 9 Of 2017- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Section 11- Seat of the Arbitration- Jurisdiction-  viz. Jurisdiction at Delhi or Noida when the agreement between the parties give exclusive jurisdiction to courts at Noida? [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Custodian of Evacuee Property Bangalore, The Vs. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor etc.– CIVIL Appellate Jurisdiction: Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1954- SC- SC-09.12.1994- (1961) 3 SCR 855- Writ of Certiorari- Four proposition laid- "(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting  errors of jurisdiction; (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction,   as   when   it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice; (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. (4) An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari if it is a manifest [Full Pdf Judgment].

    Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

    A | B | D | E | F | G | H | I | | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z  

All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove