COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. GAUYA SANTARE

In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Reserved On : 13.11.2025 Pronounced On : 12.02.2026 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.Vadamalai A.S(Md)No.2 Of 2018 K.V.R.Kannan, S/O.K.V.Raju Thevar, 1, Raj Bhavan, K.V.R.Garden, Via Samayalkudi Mariamman Koil, Theni Main Road, Madurai – 625 016. ...Appellant/Plaintiff Vs. G.Ramachandran (Died) Saradha, W/O.Muthuraman, Back Side To K.V.R.Garden, Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016. ...Respondent/Defendant

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. So, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5.The trial Court framed the following issues upon the pleadings of both parties. (1)Whether the plaintiff could not mobilize funds and not taking any steps to purchase the property as per the agreement, dated 09.03.2006? (2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S.UTKAL ALUMINA INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Bench: MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI (CJ),MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

17. The learned counsel for the Appellants/Defendants advanced the following submissions: RFA (OS) NO. 5/2017 & RFA (OS) NO. 10/2017 17.1 The Defendants aver that the Plaintiff could be said to be holding the Suit Property in a fiduciary capacity only as a member of the Hindu Family, and that the Suit Property was initially purchased, and subsequently developed by construction

RAKESH MODI vs. DY.COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

properties of the Opposite Party No.2 as she had simply filed the salary slip of the Opposite Party No.2. It has also been noticed that the Opposite Party No.2 was paying Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner by order of this court in miscellaneous case. Thus, in ultimate analysis, the Family Court has granted Rs. 10,000/- per month

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,BHUBANESWAR vs. SEKHAR KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY

17 lacs, and subsequently opened a Capital Gain account showing sale proceeds to be Rs. 20.20 lacs. Investigation also revealed that attached immovable properties namely (i) 1A, 1st Floor, Sugam Hemant Apartment, 75 Bondel Road, Kolkata-700019 purchased through registered sale deed 9786 dated 31.08.2009 area 1569 Sq. Ft. total consideration amount with stamp duty and registration

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,BHUBANESWAR vs. BOUDH CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.,BOUDH

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Rev.Pet Family Court No. 104 Of 2018 C/W Rev.Pet Family Court No. 134 Of 2017 Rev.Pet Family Court No. 131 Of 2019

17. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Hem Raj vs. Urmila Devi and others, reported in 1996 SCC Online HP 116, has held that if husband obtains a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and if wife does not joint the husband, then the wife is not entitled for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C