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.
Seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing 5th respondent Sanjay Kumar Patil to show cause under what authority he continues to hold the Office of Vice Chancellor, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Raipur, Ashish Kumar Sharma – the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition.
A conjoint reading of Sections 13, 15 and 17 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 makes it amply clear that the powers of Inspectors under the said Act are not adjudicatory and the Inspectors are not authorized to undertake the exercise of adjudication of the disputes, particularly the disputes regarding application and interpretation of the Standing Orders
Distinguished issue that has cropped up for consideration is whether this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can draw equivalence of two educational qualifications and declare equivalence, that too after initiation of recruitment process.
Principal Commissioner of Custom Vs. Riso India (P.) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Duty’ as defined in Section 2(15) of the Customs Act, is wide enough to cover all kinds of duty, including SAD. Hence, as per Section 3(8) of Customs Tariff Act
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Refam Management Services (P) Ltd. that under Section 153C the assessment or reassessment of income of a person other than a searched person would proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A.
CIT Vs. M/s Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. (Bombay High Court) In this case Hon’ble Court considered question of law that whether claim for set off of unabsorbed business loss which was brought forward in subsequent AY against the profit of section 10 A is allowable or not.
Bombay High Court held In the case of M/s Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd. vs. DCIT that Section 292 uses the word ‘may presume’ and not ‘shall presume’ or ‘conclusively presume’. The words ‘may presume’ are in the nature of discretionary presumption different from a compulsory presumption.
Bombay High Court held In the case of Dhimant Hiralal Thakar vs.CIT that eyes are an important organ of the human body and is essential for the efficient survival of a human being. Eyes are thus essential not only for the purpose of business or profession but for purposes other than these which are so many.
The learned Additional Solicitor General has stated that the matter of allotment of residential accommodation to members of the ITAT shall be dealt with fairly and on a priority basis. We are of the view that the same principle should be followed for the future so as to obviate writ petitions being
