Judgments

Brief facts of this case: In this case, the MRTP commission dismissed a lawsuit brought by some home buyers (plaintiffs) under Sections 36-A, 36-B(a) and (d), 36-D, and 36-E of the MRTP Act, as well as Sections 2(i) and 2(0). The buyers were displeased with the builder’s demand for additional fees. According to them, the […]

Brief facts of this case: In summary, the petitioner was a driver assigned to the 12th P.A.C. Battalion in Fatehpur. The petitioner was operating a truck hauling P.A.C. personnel from Fatehpur to Allahabad on Kumbh Mela duty when it collided with a jeep. The petitioner was charged with causing the accident by driving his truck

FACTS OF THE CASE  In the case at hand, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order dated 09.03.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in W.P. (S) No. 1083 of 2004, as well as the impugned judgement and order dated 12.11.2018, passed by

FACTS OF THE CASE The Merino Panel Ltd (respondent) is a manufacturer of decorative laminates and other like materials (the goods) which falls under chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA). Since the goods were excisable, the respondent’s selling price would determine the amount of tax that the Revenue department (Appellant) would collect.

FACTS: The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raising a grievance against the respondent No.1 – Ministry of Coal, Union of India1 for having included its name and mining lease area in the Schedules appended to the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014, even though, the Screening Committee

FACTS: In this case, on 26.08.2008, an order was issued by the State to grant a higher pay scale to the Medical Officers, Dental Surgeons and Officers working in the Specialist Cadre in four tier pay-scales on completion of 6 years. Later, on 23.05.2009, a circular was issued to the effect that the period from

In this case, an appeal has been preferred by Central Industrial Security Force and two others, taking exception to the judgment dated 16.12.2014 in Special Civil Application No. 13718 of 2004, where the High Court of Gujarat has allowed the writ petition preferred by Respondent Santosh Kumar Pandey. Facts: Santosh Kumar Pandey, a constable with

In the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira v State of Punjab (2019)[1] the Bench constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India considered the questions raised and held hereinunder: 1. Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has

FACTS On April 15, 2019, this Court rejected the interim remedy requested in IA No. 33819 of 2019 while deliberating on Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 31178 of 2018. The following reliefs were requested in the application for interim relief: “a) stopping all activities being carried out by Respondent No. 4 on

FACTS The appellant worked for the bank in question. In the departmental hearings, the bank fired him. The appellant filed a complaint against the stated dismissal order with the Central Government Industrial Tribunal by section 10(2)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The CGIT overturned the dismissal decision and issued a decision ordering the reinstatement of