Facts: Land was acquired under acquisition act and appellant is aggrieved for less compensation and required trees to be valued separately. The High Court found that since, there was no evidence on record establishing existence of 100 mango trees as claimed on the date when the acquisition proceedings were initiated in August 1997, the claim

Question of Law: Whether Section 14A, enables the Income tax Department to make disallowance on expenditure incurred for earning tax free income in cases where assessees do not maintain separate accounts for the investments and other expenditures incurred for earning the tax-free income. Facts: Appellants are scheduled banks engage in banking business and also engage

Facts: Petitioner filed application to mutate his name in revenue records on the basis of the will. The High Court held that once the will is disputed and even otherwise the petitioner who is claiming rights/title on the basis of the will, the remedy available to the petitioner would be to file a suit. Hence

Issue: The grievance of the Petitioner is that the extension of tenure of the second Respondent to three years is contrary to Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 Act. Judgment – “We upheld the power of the Union of India to extend the tenure of Director of Enforcement beyond the period of

Facts: Appellant is state and respondent is a licensee of department of excise duty. Appellant amended a new rule and tried applying retrospectively. High Court ordered in favour of respondent. Hence this Appeal. Observation: It is evident that when the state-initiated recovery proceedings it did not give credit of the amounts collected under the head

Tag – Paying revenue doesn’t amount to be in possession of the property. Facts: That appellant claims to be in possession of suit property for 40 years. That respondent claims at present the respondent is in possession of the suit property. Appellant went to district court by filing perpetual injunction. District court after reviewing the

Facts: Appellant vide sale deed bought a two storied building from respondent and appellant was aggrieved that respondent started construction in 2nd floor of that building by misrepresentation of facts. After several litigations, HC held that dispute pertains to cancellation of building plans and demolishing are all falls under jurisdiction of civil court. Judgment: SC

Facts: Two parties entered on partnership agreement. Out of Appellant before Supreme Court alleges that an FIR was lodged containing serious allegations of section 405, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 against respondent and in that way single judge through an oral direction held not to arrest the respondent until next date of hearing. Hence

Facts- 1.BHIMRAO RAMCHANDRA KHALATE (APPELLANT) appeal before this Court aggrieved against the suit for redemption of the mortgage property. The plaintiff was the owner of 20 gunthas of agricultural land situated in village Khunte. The plaintiff was in need of money so he borrowed  from defendant No. 1 by executing a document titled “conditional sale