Loading High Court cases…
327 orders · Page 7 of 7
The revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeals, citing a recent circular regarding pecuniary limitations. The court accepted the memo and permitted the withdrawal.
The revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeals, citing a recent circular regarding pecuniary limitations. The court accepted the memo and permitted the withdrawal.
The revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeals, citing a recent circular regarding pecuniary limitations. The court accepted the memo and permitted the withdrawal.
The revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeals, citing a recent circular regarding pecuniary limitations. The court accepted the memo and permitted the withdrawal.
The High Court noted that the statutory appeals filed by the petitioner and the subsequent appeals by the revenue before the High Court have been disposed of. Therefore, the relief sought in the writ petitions no longer survives.
The High Court noted that the statutory appeals filed by the petitioner and the subsequent appeals by the revenue before the High Court have been disposed of. Therefore, the relief sought in the writ petitions no longer survives.
The High Court noted that the statutory appeals filed by the petitioner and the subsequent appeals by the revenue before the High Court have been disposed of. Therefore, the relief sought in the writ petitions no longer survives.
The High Court found the charges against the appellants to be vague and the appeal process before the General Body ineffective. Considering the time elapsed since their removal and the bank's bye-laws, the Court directed the bank to consider re-inducting the appellants as members.
The Court found that the petitioners were approaching the court again for the same relief that was previously dismissed in earlier rounds of litigation. Therefore, the current writ petitions were deemed unsustainable.
The High Court held that the order of the original adjudicating authority merges with the order of the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the refund claim filed within one year from the date of the Appellate Authority's order is within the period of limitation.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's previous appeal was dismissed on monetary grounds. Consequently, the present appeal filed by the assessee was rendered academic.
The High Court held that the writ petitions were premature as the petitioners had a statutory remedy to file objections with the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to dispose of these objections by passing a speaking order.
The High Court held that the writ petitions were premature as the petitioners had a statutory remedy to file objections with the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to dispose of these objections by passing a speaking order.
The High Court held that the writ petitions were premature as the petitioners had a statutory remedy to file objections with the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to dispose of these objections by passing a speaking order.
The High Court held that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the material placed before it and that its decision to refuse sanction was not perverse or based on no evidence. The court cannot sit in appeal over the sanctioning authority's decision.
The High Court permitted the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to seek revival if the matter falls under exceptions to the circular.
The High Court permitted the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to seek revival if the matter falls under exceptions to the circular.
The High Court held that the writ petitions were premature as the petitioners had a statutory remedy to file objections with the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to dispose of these objections by passing a speaking order.
The High Court held that the writ petitions were premature as the petitioners had a statutory remedy to file objections with the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to dispose of these objections by passing a speaking order.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. The Court noted that the matter was called twice on the current date, and there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. This dismissal is based on the petitioner's failure to prosecute the case, not on the merits of the assessment order itself. The Court had previously directed the petitioner to ascertain and inform the Court about the availability of a statutory remedy before the Appellate Authority, but this query was not addressed due to the petitioner's absence. Therefore, no decision was made on the substantive issues related to the assessment order.
The High Court permitted the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal based on the revised monetary limits. Liberty was granted to seek revival if the matter falls under exceptions.
The High Court modified the Tribunal's finding on negligence, attributing 60% to the KSRTC bus driver and 40% to the Omni car driver. The compensation amount was enhanced based on revised income, future prospects, and established heads of damages.
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal due to the revised monetary limits for appeals. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the case falls under exceptions mentioned in the circular.
The High Court permitted the appellants (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. Liberty was granted to seek revival if the matter falls under exceptions mentioned in the circular.
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to seek revival if the matter falls under exceptions to the circular.
The High Court permitted the appellants (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals based on the revised monetary limits specified in the circular. Liberty was granted to seek revival if the case falls under exceptions.
The High Court found that the Family Court's order awarding interim maintenance was justified based on the husband's income and the wife's and daughter's needs. Both the husband's petition for reduction and the wife's petition for enhancement were dismissed.