Others Judgements

It is the say of the petitioner that they applied for a certified copy of the order on the same date, which was received on 12.11.2010 but filed the appeal on 31.1.2011. Thus, it is not in dispute that the appeal is barred by time and is even beyond

In the present case also, no obligation on the part of the respondents to frame the Rules, notwithstanding the impracticality thereof, is established. It is purely a policy matter. The Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal Sethia Vs. UOI (1997) 6 SCC 573 hel

The facts which emerge from the record are that the Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the complainant‟) sent a complaint dated 7th November, 2002 in which following allegations were made by him:- “Shri Subhash Cha

This Intra-Court Appeal impugns the judgment dated 31st August, 2007 of the learned Single Judge allowing WP(C) No. 469/2005 preferred by the respondent no.1 and directing the appellant to restore the LPG distributorship to the respondent no.1 and to

Facts: The writ petition filed by the appellants before the Delhi High Court for ordering an investigation by the CBI or a Special Investigation Team into '2G Spectrum Scam' for unearthing the role Shri A. Raja, senior officers of the department, mi

The writ petition was filed by the respondent pleading that the appellant had on 3rd January, 2003 seized ` 7,75,000/- in Indian currency and foreign currency equivalent to `96,000/- from the custody of the respondent and initiated inquiry under the

Though some merit is found in the contention of the petitioner employer that the award does not render any finding of parity in educational qualification, method of recruitment, duties and responsibilities of the Assistants/Stenographers/Hindi Transl

The respondent filed the suit for recovery of `5,89,434/- towards agent commission against the appellants claiming himself to be an agency of defendant No.3 (in the suit) an Italian Company, in India. Appellants floated a global tender for purchase o

An application under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) was filed in this court way back in 1985. It was numbered as C.P. No. 252 of 1985. It is still pending. The petitioner in that application was one Amita Sen,

Hc dismissed appeal against the order of Learned Judge made on the question which upheld the recommendation of the WRC for withdrawal of recognition