Judgments - GIFT TAX APPLICATION

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RANG NATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 3581 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 10, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

SWAPNA SUKUMAR & ORS. Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 226-227 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 10, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

GAURI SHANKAR PD RAI Vs. SAJAL CHAKROBORTY CHEIF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND AND ORS

Appeal (Civil), 421 of 2014, Judgment Date: Apr 09, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

M/S CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVEST. LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL III,T.N.

Appeal (Civil), 4494 of 2004, Judgment Date: Apr 09, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

FORESHORE CO-OP.HNG.SOCIETY LTD. Vs. PRAVEEN D DESAI (D) THR.LRS. & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 7732 of 2011, Judgment Date: Apr 08, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

DHANNULAL & ORS Vs. GANESHRAM AND ANR

Appeal (Civil), 3410 of 2007, Judgment Date: Apr 08, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD Vs. M/S. DETERGENTS INDIA LTD. & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 9049-9051 of 2003, Judgment Date: Apr 08, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

AMBICA PRASAD Vs. MD. ALAM AND ANR

Appeal (Civil), 3391 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 08, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

VOLTAS LTD. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Appeal (Civil), 2957 of 2007, Judgment Date: Apr 08, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD Vs. M/S. FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1633-1638 of 2004, Judgment Date: Apr 08, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,GOA Vs. M/S COSME FARMA LABORATORIES LTD.

Appeal (Civil), 1761 of 2007, Judgment Date: Apr 07, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

SECY., MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTT.& R.E.S. Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI

Appeal (Civil), 3348 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 07, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

PADMAKUMARI & ORS. Vs. DASAYYAN & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 3570 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 07, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Single Judge)

ONGC PETRO ADDITIONS LTD. Vs. DAELIM INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. KOREA

Appeal (Civil), 22 of 2013, Judgment Date: Apr 07, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RISHIROOP RUBBER (INTERNATIONAL ) LTD. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Appeal (Civil), 3585 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 06, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

JEYAR CONSULTANT & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,MADRAS

Appeal (Civil), 8912 of 2003, Judgment Date: Apr 01, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

BHUPAL SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Appeal (Civil), 7377 of 2008, Judgment Date: Apr 01, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

BALASAHEB ARJUN TORBOLE & ORS. Vs. THE ADMINISTRATOR & DIVNL.COMMR.& ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 9363 of 2011, Judgment Date: Apr 01, 2015

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

P.R.YELUMALAI Vs. N.M.RAVI

Appeal (Civil), 3213 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 27, 2015

However, we find that after the execution Court had dismissed the execution proceeding on the ground of delay in depositing the amount, the same question was dealt with by the original side of the Trial Court as well in the application for extension of time. Since both the Courts have given concurrent findings that the case for extension of time was not made out, we Full Judgment

Tags Civil Procedure Decree Specific Performance

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. THE SEC.MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE UNION & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 3209-3210 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 27, 2015

They have also been working for similar number of hours, however, the discrepancy in the payment of wages/salary between the permanent and the non-permanent workmen is alarming and the same has to be construed as being an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act r/w Entry No.10 of the Fifth Schedule to the ID Act, which is prohibited under Section 25(T) of the ID Full Judgment

Tags Appointment Regularisation Workmen Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds