Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + L.A. APP. 672/2011 TEJ PRATAP SINGH Reserved on:5. h January, 2018 Date of Decision:13. h April, 2018 ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Deepmala, Advocate. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Advocates for UOI/R-1. Ms. Mrinalini Sen and Mr. Shatrajit Banerji, Advocates for DDA. L.A. APP.117/2013 RANBIR SINGH & ORS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. S.S.Gulia, Advocate. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Advocates for UOI/R-1. Ms.Mrinalini Sen and Mr. Shatrajit Banerji, Advocates for DDA. L.A. APP.370/2014 BHURE LAL Through: Mr. S.S.Gulia, Advocate. versus ..... Appellant % L.A. APP No.672/2011+Connected Page 1 of 23 JAI KUMAR JAIN L.A. APP No.672/2011+Connected UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ........ RESP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on :02. 08.2019 Date of decision:07. 08.2019 W.P.(C) 10933/2018, CM APPL. 33734/2019, CM APPL.42590/2018, CM APPL. 33735/2019 DEEPANSHU BHADORIYA AND ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Sidharth Gupta, Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini & Mr. Somay Kapoor, Advocates. versus MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Ms. Michelle, Ms.Puja Sarkar, Ms. Arunima, Ms.Sumangla & Mr. Tarun Verma, Advocates for MCI. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Advocate for R- 2 & 3. Mr. Nishit Agrawal & Mr. Harsh Mishra, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Raghav Nagar, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT ANU MALHOTRA, J.1. The petitioners namely Deepanshu Bhadoriya, Wadhwani Ashwin Ramesh, Aditi Pathak, Rahul Soni and Sneha Kumari participated in the W.P. (C) 10933/2018 Page 1 of 75 CBSE conducted NEET for UG medical courses in the year 2016 and state that they were eligible and qualifi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).35853586 OF2022(@ SLP(C)No(s). 59895990 of 2022) ARAVINTH R.A. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his two writ petitions praying respectively for, (i) a declaration that Regulations 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b) & 4(c) of the National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations 2021, hereinafter referred to as the Licentiate Regulations; and (ii) a declaration that ScheduleII2a) and 2(c)(i) of the National Medical Commission (Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship) Regulations, 2021, (hereinafter referred to as CRMI Regulations) both published on 18.11.2021, are ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, the writ 1 petitioner before the Madras High Court has come up with the above appeals.2. We ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1998)64ITD456(Mad.)
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to assessment year 1994-95 and arises out of the order of the CIT(Appeals)-IV, Madras dated 12-11-1996. The only ground raised in this appeal by the assessee is that the CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the concept of spread over of royalty on lease of film 'Gentleman' granted to M/s. Rachana Pictures and made and addition of Rs. 60,66,667.2. The assessee is a film producer and carried on business under the name and style of M/s. A. R. S. Film International. The Assessing Officer observed that during the year ended 31-3-1994, the assessee has produced two films viz. 'Gentleman' and 'Sindunadipoo' and these films were released on 30-7-1993 and 14-1-1994 respectively. Cost of production of the film 'Gentleman' worked out to Rs. 1.29 crores whereas the cost for the other film 'Sindunadipoo' was Rs. 56.36 lakhs.The assessee had leased out the distribution rights of the film 'Gentleman' to Sri K. T. Kunjumon, proprietor of M/s. Rachana Pictures ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1998)66ITD83(Mad.)
1. These bunch of appeals by the assessee are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. The appeals arise out of the separate orders of the CIT(Appeals)-VIII, Madras, dated 26-11-1992 for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 and dated 29-1-1993 for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. Two common issues are involved in these appeals. The first point is with regard to taxability of the royalty income from sale of lease rights of films. The next common ground in these appeals is with reference to the sale of lease rights to related concerns and the addition made in this connection.2. The assessee is an individual and derives income from film distribution under the name 'Vijaya Pictures', Mayavaram and theatre income from M/s. Vijaya Theatres, Kumbakonam. We shall first take up the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 1988-89 as the Assessing Officer has passed speaking order for the said assessment year and followed that order for other years. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Swiss National Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Miller - 267 U.S. 42 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Swiss National Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42 (1925) Swiss National Insurance Company, Limited v. Miller No. 132 Argued November 18, 1924 Decided February 2, 1925 267 U.S. 42 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Where a corporation was an "enemy" within the definition of the Trading with the Enemy Act because doing business in Germany, the enemy status of its property then seized in this country was not changed by a subsequent cessation of such business. P. 267 U. S. 44 . 2. The fact that an enemy corporation ceased to be an enemy when the war was ended by the Joint Resolution of July 2, 1921, did not entitle it to a return of its seized property, for, by 12 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, such claims were to be settled by future direction of Congress. Id. 3. Clause 1 of 9-b of the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended June 5, 1920, c. 241, 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. O'Donnell - 303 U.S. 501 (1938) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. O'Donnell, 303 U.S. 501 (1938) United States v. O'Donnell No. 487 Argued March 1, 2, 1938 Decided March 28, 1938 303 U.S. 501 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus In a suit to quiet its title to a part of Mare Island in San Francisco Bay, within the territory acquired from Mexico by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States claimed under a deed to it in 1853 by Bissell and Aspinwall, who derived their title through a grant in 1841 by Alvarado, Mexican Governor of California, to Castro. Respondents claimed under a patent issued by California to Darlington in 1857, purporting to convey the land in question as a part of the swamp or overflowed lands granted to the State Page 303 U. S. 502 by the Swamp Lands Act of 1850. The Board of Land Commissioners, created by the Mexican Claims Act of 1851, had confirmed the title of Bissell and Aspin all in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)IIILLJ628P& H
ORDERM.M. Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of C.W.P.Nos. 2267 and 2289 of 1988. Both the petitions are directed against the award dated August 7, 1987 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh. The first petition has been filed by the Employees Union of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (for brevity 'PGI Union') and the second petition has been filed by the P.G.I. (for brevity 'the Management'). The Industrial Tribunal vide its award has held that the strike w.e.f. January 16, 1980 to February 3, 1980 although conformed to the provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act') yet it was not justified. On sympathetic consideration, the Tribunal has awarded 25 per cent of back wages for the strike period. Various other demands of the PGI Union have also been considered and certain directions have been issued.2. Brief facts of the case are that on September 9, 1980, the PGI Union served a demand notice whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2005(1)SLJ186(P& H)
Viney Mittal, J.1. Respondent No. 2, Ram Karan (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') was employed as a Technician in the Philadelphia Mission Hospital, Ambala City (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner-management'), He joined his services with effect from September 15, 1978. His services were terminated on June 19, 1996. It was claimed by the workman that throughout his employment, his work and conduct had remained good and without any sort of blot or blemish and that the petitioner-management had terminated his services illegally, unlawfully and without any reasons. He further claimed that no charge sheet was served upon him and no enquiry was held. No opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the workman. Terming the aforesaid order as illegal, null and void, unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice dated September 17,1996 under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)594; 2005CriLJ929; JT2005(11)SC209; (2005)2SCC409; 2005(1)LC446(SC)
H.K. Sema, J.1. All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2001 passed by the Designated Court No.3 at Ahmedabad in Terrorist Case No.2 of 1997, Terrorist Case No. 33 of 1994 and Terrorist Case No. 16 of 1995. The two-Judge bench before whom these appeals were posted for hearing referred the matters to a three-Judge Bench by an order dated 24.9.2002. The said Order reads as under:-'The issue involved concerns the admissibility of a confession in terms of Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ( in short 'TADA ACT'). Consequently, therefore, the other provisions as contained in Sections 12 and 18 have to be read in order to assess the legislative intent therein.This Court in State v. Nalini : 1999CriLJ3124 stated the law to be as below:-'80. Section 12 of TADA enables the Designated Court to jointly try, at the same trial, any offence under TADA together with any other offence 'with which the accused may be charg...
Tag this Judgment!