Judgments - APPLICATION U/s 378
M/S SARAL WIRE CRAFT PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, & ORS.
POONAIYAH RAMAJAYAM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST Vs. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR
P.A.JOSE ETC. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KOTTAYAM ETC
JOGENDRA YADAV & ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
KIRPAL KAUR Vs. JITENDER PAL SINGH & ORS.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors Vs Anand Mohan & Anr
F.C.I. Vs. SANKAR GHOSH & ORS.
NANDKISHORE LALBHAI MEHTA Vs. NEW ERA FABRICS P.LTD.& ORS.
RIJU PRASAD SARMA ETC.ETC. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
M/S BHS INDUSTRIES Vs. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORP.& ANR.
JOGENDRASINHGJI VIKAYSINHJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS
In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to summarise our conclusions as follows:- (A) Whether a letters patent appeal would lie against the order passed by the learned Single Judge that has travelled to him from the other tribunals or authorities, would depend upon many a facet. The Court fee payable on a petition to make it under Article 226 or Article 227 or both, would depend upon Full Judgment
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs. PAN ASIA ADVISORS LTD. & ANR
LAXAMI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
The legal nodus that we are called upon to unravel in this Appeal is whether the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act for brevity) as amended from time to time, requires an Award to be passed even in respect of lands expropriated by the State pursuant to the exercise of special powers in cases of urgency contained in Section 17 thereof. It is indeed ironical that what Full Judgment
SURENDRA KUMAR & ORS Vs. GREATER NOIDA IND. DEVELOPMENT AUTH.&ORS
The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the policy decision extending the benefit of regularisation to contractual employees against 60% vacant posts will be deemed to regularise the services of the appellants from the retrospective date, that is, 20.11.2002, when the said posts were first advertised. The appellants were Full Judgment
ZUARI CEMENT LTD. Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR,E.S.I CORP.& ORS.
Where there is want of jurisdiction, the order passed by the court/tribunal is a nullity or non-est. What is relevant is whether the Court had the power to grant the relief asked for. ESI Court did not have the jurisdiction to consider the question of grant of exemption, order passed by the ESI Court granting exemption and consequently setting aside the demand notices is Full Judgment
NK RAJENDRA MOHAN Vs. THIRVAMADI RUBBER CO. LTD AND ORS
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. Vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
UNION OF INDIA Vs. M/S BRIGHT POWER PROJECTS(I) P.LTD.
When parties to the contract had agreed to the fact that interest would not be awarded on the amount payable to the contractor under the contract, in our opinion, they were bound by their understanding. Having once agreed that the contractor would not claim Full Judgment