Loading High Court cases…
662 orders · Page 5 of 14
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh held that the present writ petition (CWP-21114-2025) would be decided in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The court did not delve into the specific facts or legal arguments pertaining to Vimal Gupta's case in this order. Instead, it adopted a procedural approach, deferring the substantive decision to the outcome of the aforementioned connected case. The ratio decidendi for this order is that when a case is directly linked to a precedent-setting judgment, the court may dispose of the former by reference to the latter, thereby ensuring consistency and judicial economy. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court decided to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for the present case are not elaborated upon in this order. The operative directions would be those contained in the judgment of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the decision is deferred to the aforementioned judgment.
The High Court held that the present writ petition (CWP-15892-2026) would be decided in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning and findings of the Tribunal in the Jyoti Sareen case would therefore apply to this case. The specific details of the findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi from the Jyoti Sareen judgment are not reproduced here, as this order is a reference to that judgment. The operative directions would be those contained in the referenced judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided in this order, as it deferred to another judgment.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided that the present writ petition (CWP-21600-2026) would be governed by the detailed judgment passed in the connected case, CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi of the Jyoti Sareen case would apply to Pardeep Bansal's petition. The operative directions would therefore be those stipulated in the Jyoti Sareen judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the decision was deferred to the connected case.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided that the present writ petition (CWP-21111-2025) would be governed by the detailed judgment passed on the same date in CWP No.15791 of 2024, Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, no independent findings or reasoning specific to Rajesh Gupta's case are provided in this order. The operative direction is to follow the decision in the connected writ petition. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, has decided to dispose of the writ petition CWP-11856-2025 (Ria Goenka Vs. Income Tax Officer and others) in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for Ria Goenka's case are not elaborated upon in this order. The operative directions would be to grant the relief, if any, as determined in the Jyoti Sareen case. Any pending miscellaneous applications have also been disposed of. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the decision was deferred to the connected case.
The High Court did not deliver a specific finding or reasoning in this judgment. Instead, it directed that the order for this case would be the same as the detailed judgment passed on the same date in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The High Court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications related to this petition. No specific relief was granted or denied based on an independent analysis of the facts and law presented in this particular case.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, has directed that the order for the present writ petition (CWP-16665-2024) is to be seen in the detailed judgment passed in a connected case, CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This implies that the decision in Harvinder Singh's case is contingent upon or identical to the decision in Jyoti Sareen's case. No specific findings or reasoning pertaining directly to Harvinder Singh's petition are provided in this excerpt. The court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications in this case. The operative directions would be those contained in the judgment of CWP No.15791 of 2024.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, did not provide a detailed judgment for the writ petition filed by Haneela Bajwa (CWP-24943-2024). Instead, it directed that the detailed judgment for this case should be referred to the judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, of the even date. Consequently, no specific findings, reasoning, or ratio decidendi were provided for Haneela Bajwa's petition within this text. All pending miscellaneous applications related to this petition were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its decision dated 10.09.2026, disposed of the Civil Writ Petition No. 21713 of 2025. The Court directed that the order for this petition would be in line with the detailed judgment previously passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled 'Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others'. Consequently, no independent findings or reasoning specific to the facts of Jimmy Garg's case were recorded in this order. The operative direction was to follow the decision in the connected case. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The judgment does not specify any issues left undecided.
The High Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Based on this consensus between the parties, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 07.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The reasoning is that both parties agreed to the application of the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to extend the benefit of a prior judgment to a subsequent case involving similar circumstances, the court will grant that relief. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its judgment dated 10.09.2026, has directed that the order for the present writ petition (CWP-18792-2024) is to be found in a detailed judgment of even date passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, no specific findings or reasoning are provided in this excerpt for the case of Rakesh Singhal. The judgment also notes that all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, have been disposed of. The operative directions for CWP-18792-2024 are therefore contingent upon the decision in CWP No. 15791 of 2024.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh has indicated that the decision for CWP-13279-2025 (O&M) is to be found in the detailed judgment of even date passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for the present case are not elaborated upon in this excerpt. The operative directions and any specific relief granted or denied are also not detailed here, as they are contingent on the judgment in the related writ petition. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the decision is deferred to the related case.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided to dispose of the writ petition CWP-20600-2025 (Amit Mehta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon and others) in accordance with the detailed judgment previously passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The specific findings and reasoning from the Jyoti Sareen judgment are not reproduced in this order. Consequently, the operative directions for this case would mirror those in the Jyoti Sareen judgment. Any pending miscellaneous applications associated with this petition were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its judgment dated 10.09.2026, did not provide a separate detailed reasoning for the present writ petition (CWP-20573-2025). Instead, it directed that the detailed judgment for this case should be considered as the one passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi of the Jyoti Sareen case would apply to Shravan Kumar Govil's petition. All pending miscellaneous applications associated with this petition were also disposed of. The specific operative directions or relief granted are not detailed here but would be as per the referenced judgment.
The High Court held that the decision in the present writ petition, CWP-20450-2026, would be governed by the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, on the same date. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi applicable to CWP-20450-2026 are not elaborated upon in this order but are to be found in the aforementioned connected judgment. The court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, filed in this petition. No specific relief or direction is mentioned for the petitioner in this order, other than the reference to the connected judgment.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, directed that the detailed judgment for the present case (CWP-21728-2026) is to be found in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi applicable to Pragun Garg's petition are not elaborated upon in this order. The operative directions would be those contained within the referenced judgment. Any pending miscellaneous applications filed in this writ petition have been disposed of.
The High Court has not provided a specific finding or reasoning for the case of Moonlight Properties Private Limited in this order. Instead, it has directed that the order for this petition should be referred to the detailed judgment passed on the same date in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This implies that the decision in CWP-22328-2025 will follow the principles and rulings laid down in the Jyoti Sareen case. The specific issues, arguments, and the final outcome for Moonlight Properties Private Limited are therefore contingent upon the outcome of the aforementioned connected writ petition.
The High Court directed that the order for this writ petition should be seen in the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This implies that the present case was decided based on the principles and findings laid down in the Jyoti Sareen case. The High Court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications. The specific findings or reasoning pertaining solely to Randhir Singh's case are not detailed in this excerpt, as it refers to another judgment for the complete order. The operative direction is to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case.
The High Court held that the present writ petition (CWP-14782-2024) would be decided in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This implies that the reasoning and findings from the Jyoti Sareen case would be applied to M/s Shankeshwar Enterprises. The judgment does not provide the specific reasoning or the ratio decidendi for CWP-14782-2024 itself, as it defers to the other judgment. Consequently, no specific operative directions or relief granted for M/s Shankeshwar Enterprises are detailed herein, other than the procedural disposal of pending applications.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided that the present writ petition (CWP-15072-2025) would be disposed of in terms of the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi from the Jyoti Sareen case are not elaborated upon in this particular order. Consequently, the operative directions for the petitioner, Yogesh Kumar Goel, are contingent upon the decision in the aforementioned connected case. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, stated that the detailed judgment for CWP-21868-2026 would be found in another case, CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, decided on the same date. Consequently, no specific findings or reasoning were provided in this order for M/S GDPA FASTNERS. The operative directions would be as per the aforementioned detailed judgment. Any issue expressly left undecided is not recorded here.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowed the petition in terms of the judgment passed in Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others on 10.09.2026. Consequently, the notice dated 17.03.2025 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings were quashed. The reasoning is based on the consensus between the parties that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned precedent case. The specific grounds for quashing the Section 148 notice, as decided in the Jyoti Sareen case, are not detailed in this judgment but form the basis for the relief granted. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, did not provide a specific ruling or reasoning for the case of Harjirmall Singh. Instead, it directed that the order for this petition would be in line with the detailed judgment passed in a connected writ petition, CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, no specific findings, reasoning, or ratio decidendi pertaining to Harjirmall Singh's case are present in this judgment. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court did not provide a separate detailed decision on the merits of CWP-24630-2026. Instead, it directed that the order for this petition would be in line with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024, Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This indicates that the legal principles and findings from the Jyoti Sareen case would govern the outcome of Roshan Garg's petition. The specific reasoning and ratio decidendi are therefore contained within the judgment of CWP No.15791 of 2024, which is not provided here. Consequently, no specific relief or operative directions were issued in this particular order, other than its disposal in terms of the connected case.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided that the present writ petition (CWP-24662-2024) would be disposed of in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi pertaining to Sushil Bansal's case are not elaborated upon here, as they are contingent on the outcome of the connected writ petition. The court also noted that all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood disposed of.
The High Court, upon considering the consensus between the learned counsel for the parties and in light of the previous judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as was granted in the aforementioned case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 14.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, were quashed. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh has not provided a specific decision or reasoning for the writ petition filed by Shilpi Rana (CWP-11983-2025) in the provided text. Instead, it has directed that the order in this case will be in accordance with the detailed judgment passed on the same date in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi applicable to Shilpi Rana's case are contingent upon the outcome of the Jyoti Sareen case, which is not detailed here. No specific relief or operative directions are mentioned for Shilpi Rana's petition, other than it being disposed of in line with the other judgment.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided to dispose of the writ petition CWP-19586-2026 (Jaswant Singh Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax OSD, Central Circle 1, Chandigarh & Ors) in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for the present case are not elaborated upon in this excerpt, as they are subsumed within the referred judgment. The court also noted that all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the decision was deferred to another judgment.
The High Court has not provided a separate detailed decision for CWP-24240-2024. Instead, it has directed that the order for this petition is to be found in the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, of even date. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, ratio decidendi, and operative directions for Sushil Bansal's case are not recorded in this particular order. The judgment only serves as a procedural directive to refer to the companion case for the substantive decision.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided to dispose of the writ petition CWP-19585-2026 based on the detailed judgment passed in a connected case, CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi from the Jyoti Sareen case are not provided in this order. Consequently, the operative directions and the relief granted to the petitioner are not detailed herein, as they are contingent on the decision in the referenced case. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the decision itself was deferred to another judgment.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its judgment dated September 10, 2026, decided to dispose of the writ petition filed by Simerdeep Kaur in terms of the detailed judgment passed on the same date in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi pertaining to Simerdeep Kaur's case are not elaborated upon in this excerpt. The judgment indicates that the outcome for Simerdeep Kaur is directly linked to the outcome of the Jyoti Sareen case. All pending miscellaneous applications filed in this matter were also disposed of. No specific issue was left undecided, as the entire petition was decided based on the connected matter.
The High Court held that the present writ petition (CWP-23562-2024) would be decided in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning for this decision is that the present case is to follow the precedent set in the connected matter. The operative direction is that the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen. No specific issue was left undecided as the decision was deferred to the detailed judgment of the connected case.
The High Court held that the present writ petition (CWP-24802-2024) is to be decided in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi applicable to CWP-24802-2024 are those established in the Jyoti Sareen judgment. The operative directions and relief granted to the petitioner in this case would therefore be contingent upon and identical to the outcome of the Jyoti Sareen case. Any pending miscellaneous applications associated with this petition were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, did not provide a detailed judgment for CWP-24946-2024. Instead, it directed that the detailed judgment for this case should be referred to in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi pertaining to CWP-24946-2024 are not recorded in this order. Any pending miscellaneous applications related to this petition were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided that the present writ petition (CWP-19463-2026) would be governed by the detailed judgment to be passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, no independent findings or reasoning were provided for the specific case of Jaswinder Singh in this order. The operative direction was to follow the decision in the connected case. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the order in the present writ petition (CWP-25471-2024) would be governed by the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, of even date. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for CWP-25471-2024 are not elaborated upon in this order. The High Court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications. The operative directions would be those contained in the aforementioned connected judgment.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, has stated that the decision for this case (CWP-25203-2026) is contained within the detailed judgment passed on the same date in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, no specific findings, reasoning, or ratio decidendi are provided for Suresh Kumar Sain's petition in this order. The operative directions would be those stipulated in the referenced judgment. Any pending miscellaneous applications have also been disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its judgment dated 10.09.2026, decided CWP-26398-2025 (O&M) by referring to the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the operative directions for the present case are to be found within that referenced judgment. The High Court also ordered the disposal of all pending miscellaneous applications in this case. No specific findings or reasoning pertaining solely to Sandeep Kumar HUF's case were recorded independently in this judgment; the decision is contingent on the outcome of the Jyoti Sareen case. The specific relief granted or denied, and the underlying legal principles, are therefore not detailed here but are presumed to be elaborated in the referenced judgment.
The High Court did not provide a specific finding or reasoning for the case of Kiran Singh (CWP-19302-2026) in the provided text. Instead, it directed that the detailed judgment should be referred to in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Therefore, the specific outcome, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for this particular petition are not available in this excerpt. The judgment only notes that all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
The High Court did not provide an independent decision on the merits of CWP-16374-2026. Instead, it explicitly stated that the order for this petition was to be found in the detailed judgment of even date passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This implies that the outcome of B D Ispat Private Limited's petition was determined by the findings and directions issued in the Jyoti Sareen case. The court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications related to this petition. No specific findings, reasoning, or ratio decidendi pertaining directly to B D Ispat Private Limited's case are recorded in this order, beyond the reference to the other judgment.