In order to be exempted from making provision for reservation in favour of a person with disability, notification in the Official Gazette has to be duly published by the appropriate Government.
(1) The petitioner herein (Abhay Kumar Kapre) had filed Writ Petition No. 5308/2014 before this Court claiming quashment of advertisement dated 5.9.2014 (Annexure P-1) so far as it relates to relaxation of age in Clause 4(ii) & Clause 4(xi) and claiming age relaxation. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 9.9.2015 […]
Karnataka High Court held In the case of CIT & ACIT vs. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank that Section 41(1) attracted when an allowance or deduction is sought to be made in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability is incurred by the assessee.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) vs. CIT that the transfer pricing adjustment is not expected to be made by deducing from the difference between the ‘excessive’ advertisement
It seems to us that it would be an incorrect approach to start this process by considering the re-appointment or renewal of existing Government Counsels since that would dilute, nay, dissolve the discretion of the Government to appoint advocates whom they find trustworthy.
Likewise, in the matter of Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar and others, the Supreme Court has held that delay and laches is one of the factors that requires to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held In the case of ADIT vs. Sh. Dhan Singh Sharma that ld counsel for the applicant admitted at the time of arguments that statement was re-started after some time on the same day.
The High Court in a quo warranto proceeding should be slow to pronounce upon the matter unless there is a clear infringement of the law.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that Teacher of fully aided school is an employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and entitled for gratuity.
Accordingly, it is held that respondent No. 1 High Court of Chhattisgarh is absolutely justified in holding respondent No. 2 to be eligible for the purpose of recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and rightly selected / appointed him on the said post {District Judge (Entry Level)} as a member of Higher Judicial Service.
