On 30/10/2017 The District Consumer Forum Warangal passed an interesting judgment in the case CC/4/2017 (Ravichandra. D Vs Samsung Electronics). The DCF Warangal passed the above Judgment directing the Complainant (i.e) Consumer to pay Rs10,000
The Educational Appellate Tribunal under Karnataka Education Act 1983 in my considered opinion is well within its jurisdiction to declare the terms and condition No 3 in the appointment order as void illegal and unenforceable in an application filed
The Hon-ble CESTAT, Chennai held as under: - The Adjudicating Authority had rightly computed the interest amount from the due date till the date of payment in respect of demand for the month of January, 2011, by working out interest at 13% up to M
The Hon-ble CESTAT, Bangalore held that although there is no specific 'relevant date' under Section 11B of the Excise Act to claimrefund of unutilized credit, but, that would not rule out applicability of Section 11B. Relevant date should be the date
Hon-ble Apex Court held that it cannot be the intention of the Legislature to provide rebate only on one item i.e. either on inputs or final products. It was further held that giving such restrictive meaning to Rule 18 of the Excise Rules would not o
The Hon-ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that reimbursement of the cost of obtaining and employing resources/certain expenses incurred by the Appellant on the behalf of the Group Companies cannot be regarded as consideration flowing to the Appellant towards t
The Hon-ble AAR, after detailed discussion, held that: The phrase 'grant of license to use the system on a non-exclusive basis' is used for the reason that the proprietary/intellectual property used in the system is utilized by the Applicant in othe
The Hon-ble High Court of Patna held as under: The -Governmental authority- as defined in the Notification dated January 30, 2014, means an authority or a board or any other body set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature;
We are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court has not discussed and decided the issue correctly and warrants interference. We, thus, allow these appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court by holding that Sodexo Meal Vouchers are
The collegium system of judicial appointments is here to stay. The Supreme Court today declared the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), and the Constitutional amendments involved, to be in violation of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner has to be paid all the increments and quarterly allowances which he would have been entitled if he was not under suspension from the date of his suspension in addition to the amount already paid to him by the clause has been correctly
The fact that in terms of Sastri Award, Desai Award and Bipartite Settlement, the employees are entitled to the calculation of increments during the period of suspension not being disputed, the petitioner/Union is entitled to succeed and entitled t
"The last contention is regarding payment of increments and quarterly allowances to the petitioner during the period of his suspension. Since there is a provision in Clause 17 of Desai Award, suspension allowance has to be paid according to this pr
Judgement of Hon-ble Mr. Lodha (J) & Mr. Gokhale (J) in Civil Appeal No. 684/2004 State of MP v/s Rakesh Kohli delivered on May 11, 2012 w.r.t. Stamp Act applicable to State of M. P. (Stamp Duty on POA when given to Non-Relative)
Judgments of the higher court/s and/or the Apex Court are either per incuriam and/or stare-decisis and/or against the doctrine of Pith N Substance and/or Ultra Vires and/or otherwise untenable looking to the ground realities. Such judgments remain
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Pinaki Chandra Ghose prescribed detailed guidelines on the issuing of government advertisements.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices J. Chelameswar and Pinaki Chandra Ghose held that the printed date on the cheque, in absence of any other evidence, cannot be conclusive of the fact that the cheque was issued on that particular date.
The main contention of the appellant is that since the contractor has not been made a party to the case , the commissioner has decided that the claim was not maintainable though it was clearly proved that the deceased was employed in the factory prem
Section 234E of the Income Tax Act,1961 is intravires the Constitution of India. The said Section 234E does not violate any provision of the Constitution of India. Delay in furnishing TDS Returns/Statements increases the work burden of the Department
Updated on : 20/04/2018 14:28:03