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

23 of 43 15. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record, the Suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff on the following grounds: 15.1 The Plaintiff successfully proved his ownership of the Suit Property, by virtue of the perpetual lease deed dated 11.05.1971 (Ex.PW1/2), and conveyance deed dated 05.01.2001 (Ex.PW1/3). He has also established that the sanctioned

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

23. There is a recent development that section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is used as a platform to obtain a decree of divorce before invoking section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act to make a ground that the wife has deserted husband voluntarily. Therefore, the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is filed and obtained

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

house property in Madurai town was rising fast and this must have induced the plaintiff to wake up after 2 ½ years and demand specific performance.” (2) 2011 5 Supreme 1 in the case of “Saradamani Kandappan /v/ S.Rajalakshmi & Ors.” the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph No.28 as follows: ''28.Till the issue is considered in an appropriate case

RAKESH MODI vs. DY.COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

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

2 and he also accepted the rent income. One more thing which is worth taking note of is that neither O.P.W.-2 nor O.P.W.-3 in their evidence claimed that they are residing with their son-O.P. No.2 at Mumbai. They did not come out with any evidence that they are dependent upon the income of O.P. No.2

COMNR.,OF INCOME TAX vs. FALCON REAL ESTATE

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

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA MINING CORP.

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

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent