Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:26. h May, 2017 Pronounced on:03. d July,2017 + W.P.(CRL) 856/2016 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 4702/2016, 4704/2016, 10527/2016, 12181/2016 VIRBHADRA SINGH & ANR ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayank Jain, Mr. Madhur Jain and Mr. Parmatma Singh, Advocates versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC, Mr. Kunal Dutt, Ms. Karnika Singh and Mr. Vignaraj Pasayat, Advs. + W.P.(CRL) 2044/2016 & Crl.MA. Nos.10657-58/2016 CHUNNI LAL CHAUHAN ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayank Jain, Mr. Madhur Jain and Mr. Parmatma Singh, Advocates versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC, Mr. Kunal Dutt, Ms. Karnika Singh and Mr. Vignaraj Pasayat, Advs. WP(C) 856/2016 & connected matters Page 1 of 101 + W.P.(CRL) 2862/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.4634 OF2014VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.28394 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.28922 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.29273 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.............OF2022(@ DIARY No.41063 OF2015 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.9987 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.10018 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.10019 OF20152 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.993 OF2016TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.150 OF2016TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.151-157 OF2016WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.152 OF2016SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.11839 OF2019SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.2890 OF2017SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.5487 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1269 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1270 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1271-1272 O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.21762 OF2017ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No.8193/2012; C.A. No.5057/2012; C.A. No.5058/2014; C.A. No.9974/2018; C.A. No.5056/2012; C.A. No.4196/2015; C.A. No.4374/2015; C.A. No.9380/2017; C.A. No.13071/2017; C.A. No.12058/2017; C.A. No.16375/2017; C.A. No.12869/2017; C.A. No.17527/2017; C.A. No.21845/2017; C.A. No.5719/2018; C.A. No.9886/2018; C.A. No.9200/2018; C.A. No.9860/2018; C.A. No.10114/2018; C.A. No.1643/2019; C.A. No.3596/2018; C.A. No.6762/2018; C.A. No.3972/2018; C.A. No.3343/2018; C.A. No.3359/2018; C.A. No.3971/2018; C.A. No.3347/2018; C.A. No.6489/2018; C.A. No.10598/2018; C.A. No.7643/2018; C.A. No.8321/2018; C.A. No.8554/2018; C.A. No.9172/2018; C.A. No.10406/2018; C.A. No.11259/2018; C.A. No.11884/2018; C.A. No.226/2019; C.A. No.170/2019; C.A. No.2047/2019; C.A. No.2335/2019; C.A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2023 INSC1058IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL WRIT / APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.1099 of 2019 IN RE: ARTICLE370OF THE CONSTITUTION With Writ Petition (C) No.871 of 2015 With Writ Petition (C) No.722 of 2014 With SLP (C) No.19618 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.1013 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1082 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1068 of 2019 1 With Writ Petition (C) No.1037 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1062 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1070 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1104 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1165 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1210 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1222 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.396 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.756 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.398 pf 2018 With 2 Writ Petition (C) No.924 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1092 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1162 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1048 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1268 of 2019 And With Writ Petition (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC661; [1955]2SCR603; [1955]6STC446(SC)
Das, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal, filed under a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Patna, is directed against the judgment of that High Court pronounced on the 4th December, 1952 whereby it dismissed the application made by the appellant company under article 226 of the Constitution praying for an appropriate writ or order quashing 'the proceedings issued by the opposite parties for the purpose of levying and realising a tax which is not lawfully leviable on the petitioners' and for other ancillary reliefs. 2. The relevant facts appearing from the petition filed in support of the appellant company's aforesaid application are as follows : The appellant company is an incorporated company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling various sera, vaccines, biological products and medicines. Its registered head office is at Calcutta and its laboratory and factory are at Baranagar in the district of 24 - Perganas in West Bengal. It is registered as a dealer under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai C Bench, dated 16.8.2004 passed in I.T.A.No. 705/1996. (Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)1. The assessee is on appeal as against the order of Tribunal for the assessment year 1983-84. The above appeal was admitted on the following questions of law.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding amended collaboration agreement was an extension of the old agreement which was entered into before 1.4.76 and hence the tax was payable at the rate of 50%?2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in not giving specific direction to the Assessing Officer, to grant consequential benefits if the agreement dated 21.8.81 is treated as an agreement entered into before 1.4.76?2. The assessee herein is a non resident assessee represented through its agency BHEL. The said non resident company had an agreement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Wood - 299 U.S. 123 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936) United States v. Wood No. 34 Argued October 20, 1936 Decided December 7, 1936 299 U.S. 123 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Bias of a prospective juror may be actual or implied -- i.e., bias in fact or bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law. P. 299 U. S. 133 . 2. The Act of August 22, 1935, concerning qualifications of jurors in the District of Columbia, leaves all prospective jurors subject to examination and rejection for actual bias. Id. 3. In dealing with an employee of the Government, summoned to jury service in a criminal case, the court should be solicitous to discover whether, in view of the nature or circumstances of his employment, or of the relation of his particular governmental activity to the matters involved in the prosecution, he has actual bias. P 299 U. S. 134 . Page 299 U. S. 12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant97; 1989(2)KarLJ202
ORDER1. Common prayer in these series is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to forbear respondents from interfering with their right to excavate, remove and transport granite found in his/their patta land/s.2. Most of the petitioners are from old State of Mysore and a few from Kollegal, which on re-organization has become part and parcel of Mysore District. They trace their right to excavate granite either to proviso to S. 38 of Mysore Land Revenue Code and notification issued thereunder or the Madras Board Standing Order. In support of their prayer, reliance is placed on catena of decisions of this Court to which a reference would be made a little later.3. Respondents in their statement of objections dispute their right to extract minor minerals except in accordance with the Rules framed under S. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') Specific reference is made to Ch. II of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992AP19; 1991(3)ALT173
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. As all the writ petitions are interconnected, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. By these writ petitions the constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act 10 of 1971 and Rule 22(C) issued in G.O.Ms. No. 220, Food and Agriculture, dated 20th March, 1991 and Rule 22(A)(3)(a) issued in G.O.Ms. No. 224, Food and Agriculture, dated 20th March, 1991, are challenged.3. In the year 1987 elections were held to the Managing Committees of the Co-operative Societies in the State. The term of office of the managing committees at that time was five years. By an Ordinance issued on 30th June, 1990, the term of the managing committees was reduced to three years, as a consequence of which, almost all the managing committees ceased to exist. In order to fill the void, the Government issued various orders appointing Officers as persons-in-charge. Challenging the same, a batch of writ petitions, W.Ps. Nos. 8783 of 1990 and batch, was filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori125
Narasimham, J.1. These six revision petitions are against the order of the District Munsif of Aaka rejecting six execution petitions Nos.269, 271, 272, 273, 276 and 277 of 1944 on the ground that they were barred by limitation. The revision petitions were first heard by my Lord the Chief Justice sitting singly and he was pleased to refer to a larger Bench in view of the doubt entertained by him regarding the correctness of two Division Bench decisions of the Patna High Court reported in Banwari Narain v. Ramhari Narain, A. I. R (29) 1942 pat. 335: (197 I. C. 217) and Mohammad Sadique Mian v. Mdkabir Sao, A. I. E. (29) 1942 Pat. 410 : (21 Pat. 866).2. The material facts which are not in dispute are as follows: Execution petn. no. 269 of 44 arose out of a Small Oause Court suit which was disposed of on 1st August 1944 and the remaining five execution petitions arose out of Small Cause Court suits which were disposed of on 8th August 1941. In all those suits, the decrees were actually dra...
Tag this Judgment!