Rohtas Industries Limited v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union

1 SCC 171Reported decision2021#18503 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Judgments citing Rohtas Industries Limited v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 2 vs. M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/619/2019HC Delhi30 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 263Section 80I

…nder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner has rightly placed reliance upon the decisions in the case of Rohtas Industries Limited v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union [(1976) 2 SCC 82.] , (1991) 1 SCC 171 (sic), (1995) 1 SCC 1811 (sic), G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute [AIR 2003 SC 1764 : (2003) 4 SCC 225.] . The principles laid down in those decisions with all fours applicable to the case on hand and therefore BIAL is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it ha…

Chandrakant S/O Tammanna Majagi vs. Karnataka State Bar Council

Appeal is allowed

WA/100141/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: M.I.ARUN,G.NARENDAR

Section 4

…mplitude of the language used indicates, and so can affect any person – even a private individual – and be available for any (other) purpose – even one for which another remedy may exist. (Rohats Industries Ltd., vs. Rohtas Industries Staff Union: (1976) 2 SCC 82). - 81 - 14. Yet another reason why we must reject the submission of Mr. Shakti Singh, learned counsel appearing for second respondent-writ petitioner, that a writ petition would not lie is that an advocate, an officer of the Court, discharges public law functions of providing access to justice to needy litigants. He has also t…

Cornerview Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 9TDS) - CPC, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3285/MUM/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Jintendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip

Section 194ISection 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.3285/Mum./2018 ITA no.3286/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year :2016–17) (Assessment Year :2016–17) ITA no.3287/Mum./2018 ITA no.3288/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year :2016–17) (Assessment Year :2016–17) ITA no.3289/Mum./2018 ITA no.3290/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year :2016–17) (Assessment Year :2016–17) ITA no.3298/Mum./2018 ITA no.3299/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year :2016–17) (Assessment Year :2016–17) ITA no.3301/Mum./2018 ITA no.3302/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year :2016–17) (Asses…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. V.Dhana Reddy AND Co

ITTA/137/2017HC Telangana14 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

For Appellant: - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lucknow Thru. AssttFor Respondent: - Gaurav Sharma And Anr

Section 163Section 166Section 173

…udhvir Singh and Another; AIR 2008 SC 2396, National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar Badri Kumar Jagad and Others; 2011 (12) SCC 695/ 2011 (29) LCD 1793, Anita Sharma and Others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another; (2021) 1 SCC 171 and Sunita and Others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others; (2020) 13 SCC 486. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the accident and rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck has been proved by the claimants before the tribunal and merely because the claimant has stated in his cross…

Commissioner of Income Tax- TDS vs. M/S. A.P.Power Generation Corporation Ltd

The appeal is partly allowed and the

ITTA/123/2016HC Telangana25 Jan 2017

Bench: The Learned

For Appellant: Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate

…Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal and Ors., (1980) 3 SCC 457. (v) Examination of some best eyewitnesses is not the requirement in the motor-accident claims. Nonexamination thereof is not fatal. (Anita Sharma vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 1 SCC 171. (vi) The site plan prepared by the Investigating Agency alone is not sufficient to prove the plea of contributory negligence. The onus to prove the plea of negligence always lies on the respondent.(Sunita and others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Co. & Anr. (2020) 13 SCC 486. (vii) Some discrepancies are bound to appear in the ocular e…