Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 v. Simon India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld the allowance of foreign exchange loss on forward contracts as a business loss under the Income Tax Act, rejecting Revenue's claim that such losses were speculative and disallowable under CBDT Instruction No. 3/2010.
Jai Pal & Ors. v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that injury and death of a bona fide passenger during boarding/alighting constitute an 'untoward incident' under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, entitling claimants to compensation irrespective of alleged negligence.
Ajay Kumar Awasthi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioners' claim for retrospective seniority and promotions in SSB due to their voluntary non-participation in the centralized seniority list and inordinate delay in challenging settled seniority, upholding the validity of the existing seniority and promotion lists.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil Kumar Proprietor Jai Mata Di Logistics Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that the investigating agency has the right to conduct Test Identification Parade of recovered stolen articles despite their release, setting aside orders denying such TIP to ensure effective investigation.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 v. Trigent Software Limited
The Bombay High Court upheld the ITAT's decision treating expenditure on abandoned software development projects as revenue expenditure since no new capital asset of enduring benefit was created.
GTL Infrastructure Ltd v. Vodafone Idea Ltd
The Bombay High Court held that a dispute resolution clause making arbitration conditional upon mutual agreement and using permissive language 'may' does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement, and dismissed the applications for appointment of arbitrators.
M/s. Pinak Bharat and Company v. Shri Anil Ramrao Naik
The Bombay High Court upheld acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case, ruling that cheques given as security and unilaterally altered by the payee are invalid for prosecution.
Bittu @ Manpreet Sukhdevsing Mahi; Dilip Indrajitsing Chauhan; Amar @ Rinku Kulvantsing Chauhan v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court acquitted appellants in a MCOCA case due to inconsistent prosecution evidence and unreliable confession, holding that main offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The State of Maharashtra v. Manisha Chandrakant Gosavi
The Bombay High Court held that the respondent's resignation was voluntary and effective upon acceptance, setting aside the Tribunal's order of reinstatement and directing appropriate action on her sexual harassment complaint.
Charudatta Ramchandra Bagadi v. Secretary, Shetkari Shikshan Mandal
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging termination of a teacher appointed without mandatory prior permission and proper procedure under the M.E.P.S. Act, upholding the legality of the termination and refusal of reinstatement.
Shri Raviraj Rajendra Patil v. Gram Panchayat Bachni & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the rejection of an election objection based on delayed caste validity certificate production, allowing COVID-19 pandemic-related delay as a valid ground for condonation beyond the statutory period.
Rajasthan State v. Phool Singh
The Supreme Court held that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle reinstatement in service where disciplinary proceedings have established misconduct on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi v. Mahipal Singh
The Supreme Court overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken and compensation tendered, allowing the Government's appeal.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Subhash Jain
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was not taken due to pending litigation and compensation was tendered, setting aside the High Court's order declaring lapse.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Sudesh Verma
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was not taken due to pending litigation and compensation was tendered, allowing the Government's appeal and setting aside the High Court's order.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Karampal
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation tendered, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and denying subsequent purchasers the right to claim lapse.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Karampal
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken or compensation is tendered, overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and disallowing subsequent purchasers from claiming lapse.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Zubair
The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings and that acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken, even if compensation was not tendered.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Zubair
The Supreme Court held that acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken or compensation tendered, and a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge such proceedings.
Solomon Selvaraj & Ors. v. Indirani Bhagawan Singh & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that an application to sue as indigent persons can be rejected if the plaint discloses no cause of action or is barred by law, but the plaintiff may still institute the suit by paying court fees within a fixed time.