Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Padi Kaushik Reddy v. The State of Telangana
The Supreme Court held that the Speaker is the exclusive authority to decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, and courts cannot direct the Speaker to decide such petitions within a fixed time prior to the final decision, limiting judicial intervention to post-decision review for jurisdictional errors.
Khem Singh v. State of Uttaranchal
The Supreme Court held that the legal heir of a deceased victim-appellant has the right to be substituted and continue prosecuting a criminal appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, overruling abatement and affirming victims' substantive right to appeal.
Khem Singh v. State of Uttaranchal
The Supreme Court held that the legal heir of a deceased victim-appellant has the right to be substituted and continue prosecution of criminal appeals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, ensuring victims' substantive right to appeal is preserved.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Thiru. C. Ve. Shanmugam
The Supreme Court allowed appeals challenging a High Court interim order restraining use of political leader names in government welfare scheme advertisements, holding the writ petition was an abuse of process and emphasizing political neutrality and procedural propriety.
M/s. Survee Shidal v. Airports Authority of India
The Bombay High Court held that disputes over termination and authority under a concession agreement are arbitrable, while eviction proceedings apply only to unauthorized encroachment, and granted interim status quo pending arbitration.
M/s. Survee Foods Private Limited v. Airports Authority of India
The Bombay High Court held that disputes over termination and authorized occupation under a concession agreement are arbitrable, while eviction proceedings apply only to unauthorized occupation, and granted interim status quo pending arbitration.
Sachin Corporation v. Kusuma Bhandary Construction Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that Arbitral Tribunals may compute and collect stamp duty and penalty on inadequately stamped instruments not covered by Section 32A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act and admit them into evidence without waiting for Stamp Authorities' assessment, enabling arbitration to proceed expeditiously.
Dilip Jagannath Ambilwade v. Government of Maharashtra
The High Court held that resignation entails forfeiture of past service barring exceptions, and the petitioner’s break in service cannot be condoned nor past service counted for pension or seniority, dismissing his writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s order.
Avon Solutions and Logistics Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST adjudication order due to inadequate notice and remanded the matter for fresh hearing, leaving the validity of extension notifications to the Supreme Court.
Avon Solutions and Logistics Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte GST adjudication order due to improper notice and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, leaving the validity of extension notifications pending before the Supreme Court.
M/S R.K. Jain and Sons Hospitality Services (P) Ltd v. New Delhi Municipal Council
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that judicial scrutiny at this stage is limited to prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving merits to the arbitral tribunal.
Atul Goyal v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act following amicable settlement and payment of dues, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process.
Roopa Goyal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1)
The Delhi High Court quashed the time-barred Section 148 notice for AY 2015-16, holding TOLA 2020 inapplicable and reaffirming the limitation period under Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Rajesh Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 43(1)
The Delhi High Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of disputed Income Tax notices and orders under Sections 148 and 148A, emphasizing procedural compliance and opportunity of hearing.
Manish Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-34(1) Delhi
The Delhi High Court remanded the challenge to the Section 148 notice and Section 148A(d) order for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer after hearing the petitioner, following recent Supreme Court precedents.
M/S TRANS INDIA LOGISTICS v. GSTO, WARD-60 & ANR
The Delhi High Court set aside ex-parte GST demand orders due to improper notice of Show Cause Notices and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, leaving the validity of extension notifications to the Supreme Court.
Roopa Goyal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1) Delhi
The Delhi High Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of notices issued under Section 148 and related provisions of the Income Tax Act for AY 2014-15, directing reasoned orders within four weeks.
B.C. Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3) Delhi
The Delhi High Court remanded the reassessment proceedings under Section 148/148A of the Income Tax Act for fresh consideration, directing the Assessing Officer to hear the petitioner and pass reasoned orders within four weeks.
Banyan Capital Advisors LLP v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (2) Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 149(1) are invalid as TOLA does not extend limitation for that year, and quashed the impugned notice and proceedings.
Dhurav Real Estate Developers Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Delhi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court remanded the reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2013-14 to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.