Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to forthwith grant and sanction interest on the refund amount after expiry of three months from the respective dates of applicatio

Heard Mr. Vikram Nankani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajshekhar Govilkar, learned counsel for the respondents.

Subject matter and reliefs sought for in all the writ petitions being identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

This is a case, where the obstructionist (who according to the decree holder is a sub-lessee/dealer of the original defendant) is obstructing the execution of the decree, for eviction, although the original lessee is willing to surrender possession,

The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 12th April 2019 in Revision Application No.NIL/2011 passed by Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik, whereby the revision application preferred by the petitioner a

The Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of M/s National Steel & Agro Industries Limited v. Principal commissioner [Final Order Nos. 51518-51519/2021 decided on May 25, 2021] quashed the demand under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 ('t

This judgment will dispose of common questions of law, which arise in various proceedings preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, as well as transferred cases under Article 139A; those causes were transferred to the file of this cour

This appeal is filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 against the order of the ld CIT(A)-4, New Delhi dated 22.04.2014.

These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee DLF Universal Ltd (The appellant/ assessee) and The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ,Circle-1(1), Gurgaon (The ld AO) against the order passed by the ld Commissioner of Income tax (A)-1, Gurgaon[

These are the four cross appeals of the same assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12, these appeals also involve similar facts raising similar grounds, argued by both the parties together. Therefore, this bunch of appeals is disposed of by t