BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Section 271(1)(c) dated 17.11.2006 qua the appellant/assessee for the self­same assessment year 1998­1999.  The Income­Tax Officer had passed the said order as a consequence of the conclusion reached in the assessment order which had by then become final upto the stage of ITAT vide order dated 27.4.2006 ­ to the effect that the stated purchases by the appellant/assessee from

STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) vs. NAVJOT SANDHU @ AFSAN GURU

Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI P.P. NAOLEKAR

271] observed thus: "\005the provisions of the Act need not be resorted to if the nature of the activities of the accused can be checked and controlled under the ordinary law of the land. It is only in those cases where the law enforcing machinery finds the ordinary law to be inadequate or not sufficiently effective for tackling the menace

MEENAKSHI MILLS, MADURAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MADRAS

In the result, the appeals fail, and are dismissed with

271, 720 meaning of those observations Should be clarified, lest error and misconception should embarrass and fog the administration of law. The position that emerges on the authorities may thus be summed up: (1)When the point -for determination is a pure question of law such as construction of a statute or document of title, the decision of the Tribunal

JUSTICE K.S.PUTTASWAMY(RETD) vs. UNION OF INDIA

Appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

c onnected matters Page 72 of 567 number related to changes in name, address, date of birth etc. (4) Please confirm: (a) UIDAI takes no responsibility with respect to the correct identification of a person. Ans.: Please refer to Answer (1) above. Additionally, it may be stated that enrolment of Aadhaar is done through a resident enrolment process and verification

ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR

1 SCC 258 (para 6) 76 on relevant aspects/allegations including in respect of matters outside the complaint, but specifically noted in the protest petition. It was the bounden duty of the Magistrate to so direct, and also primary responsibility of the SIT to investigate every piece of information which had come to the fore by way of complaint

THE CORRESPONDENCE RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION vs. B GUNASHEKAR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Court Of Xiii Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (Cch-22) Till The Next Date Of Hearing.”

bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court. ….. 28. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh23 held that the Court must examine the plaint and determine

BIKRAM CHATTERJI vs. UNION OF INDIA

section 8 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 (for short, ‘the RERA’) and also in view of the provisions contained in sections 13 and 14 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Industrial Development Act’), the lease deeds granted by Noida and Greater Noida authorities were ordered to be cancelled. In the lease

NEELAM GUPTA vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

bogus and sham document. According to them, Sitaram, the common cousin of original defendants as also the plaintiff got no right to transfer the suit schedule property to the plaintiff as he himself had not accrued any right over the suit schedule property based on sale Civil Appeal Nos. 3159-60 of 2019 Page 14 of 53 deed registered

L.N. ASWATHAMA vs. P. PRAKASH

C) No. 8405 of 2007] L. N. Aswathama & Anr. … Appellant(s) Vs. P. Prakash … Respondent (s) O R D E R R. V. Raveendran, J. Leave granted. 2.The appellants are the plaintiffs in a suit (OS No.2667/1987 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore) filed against the respondent, for declaration of title, possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits