Judgments - Interpretation
PARISONS AGROTECH (P) LTD. & ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
M/S MODERN HOTEL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE & ORS.
JUSTICE K.S.PUTTASWAMY(RETD)& ANR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY Vs. COSTAL GUJARAT POWER LTD. & ORS.
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY Vs. COSTAL GUJARAT POWER LTD. & ORS.
M/S. JAYASWAL NECO LTD. Vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR
M/S. TATA CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Nand Lal Vs Deputy Director Consolidation Distt Hardoi And Ors.
MS. HCL LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
The question is as to whether Risograph is an office machine having duplicating function and thus to be classified under sub-heading 8472.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or is it a printing machine to fall under sub-heading 8443.50. Full Judgment
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI Vs. M/S. SANDAN VIKAS (I) LTD.
PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS REGUL.BOARD Vs. INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD.& ORS.
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. ETC. Vs. RAJUBHAI SOMABHAI BHARWAD & ANR. ETC.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS Vs. A.P MAMMIKUTTY
A.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. Vs. MATETI S.V.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
MANYATA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P & ORS
District Magistrate should have simply certified her character because that was the only question which the former was called upon to examine while dealing with the request made by the appellant. The District Magistrate, however, appears to have been swayed by considerations wholly extraneous to the question whether the appellant had a good moral character. it is Full Judgment
COMMON CAUSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA
23. The legitimate and permissible object of an advertisement, as earlier discussed, can always be achieved without publication of the photograph of any particular functionary either in the State of a political party. We are, therefore, of the view that in departure to the views of the Committee which recommended permissibility of publication of the photographs of the President and Prime Minister of the country and Governor or Chief Full Judgment
PRADIP NANJEE GALA Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER & ORS.
The question raised before us is whether the respondent-Revenue could resile from a settlement entered into with the assessee on the basis of which the appellant has already paid and settled his dues under the Act. “In a Taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There Full Judgment
SHREYA SINGHAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
This batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raises very important and far-reaching questions relatable primarily to the fundamental right of free speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The immediate cause for concern in these petitions is Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000. 119. Full Judgment
DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. Vs. INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORP.& ORS
The issue falling for consideration is whether minutes of meeting can override statutory regulations. Article 77 of the Constitution of India deals with the conduct of business of Government of India while Article 166 of the Constitution of India deals with the conduct of business of the Government of Full Judgment
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. DILEEP KUMAR SINGH
These appeals raise an interesting question as to the interpretation of a proviso contained in Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short the "1995 Act"). It is well settled that the provisions of a statute must be read harmoniously together. However, if this is not possible then it is settled law that where there is a conflict between two Sections, and you cannot reconcile the two, you have to determine which is the leading provision Full Judgment