SRI MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B. Veerappa Writ Petition No.25553/2018 (T-It) Between:

Section 85 of the Finance Act, has condoned the delay and directed the authorities concerned to decide the case on merits

SRI. M SEETHAPATHY RAO vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

condone the delay beyond three months in view of the provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act and also

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

85 years No.9, V V Road, V V Puram, Bangalore – 560 004. ... Petitioner (By:Sri K.V.Dhananjay, Advocate) AND: 1. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. 3 2. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Shram Sadan, 3rd Cross, 3rd Main, 2nd Phase, Yeshwanthpur Industrial Suburb Tumkur road, Bangalore

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

condonation of delay, without considering the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court? : 5 : ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal can be held to be good in law, when it dismissed the appeal of the appellant solely on the ground of limitation without examining the merits of the appeal especially against the background that the subject-amounts involved

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

85 legislation or in other words a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility would normally would not be eschewed. Thus, the purposive interpretation will have to be taken note of while examining the legislative competence of a statute or a provision in a statute when the same is under challenge. 11. Keeping the above principles in mind