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

1) of Cr.P.C. holding that non compliance of decree of restitution of conjugal rights will be held as a ground for not granting maintenance under section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. While doing so, the conduct of the wife as to whether the wife had sufficient reason not to stay with the husband or husband creating such circumstances that the wife

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 COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR vs. BINAY KUMAR JINDAL, HUF

Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed

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

House of Lords in the case of Anisminic Ltd, v. Foreign Compensation Commission, reported at 1969(1) ER 208 and the 6 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta & Bros, reported at (1971) 1 SCC 486 (para 21). 6. The second point urged by learned counsel for the appellants

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