High Court Archives

The Petitioner prays to receive interest on the refund amount under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 from the Respondents.

Different petitioners have filed several petitions claiming the pensions to the teaching and non-teaching employees of Dibrugarh University. The Respondents blamed several withstanding issues as an excuse for not paying the required amount timely.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court heard the Petitioner of the present case dealing with Article 21 of the Constitution of India and said that they shall be allowed to live their married life the way they desire as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Tribunal will decide as to whether the Adjudicated Authority was right to dismiss the promotional expenses of the Assessee in the order dated 13th September 2019.

The Petitioner filed this petition against the order of the State government not granting an exemption from imposition of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on oxygen concentrators imported into the country, as a gift, for personal use. 

A single judge bench consisting of Honorable Justice C. Praveen Kumar passed an order on the Writ Petition no. 10145 of 2021. The Writ Petition was filed to seek issuance of a Writ of mandamus declaring the actions of the Respondents in demolishing a residential house, without following the due procedure of law, as illegal and incorrect. 

The Bombay High Court said that if the door-to-door vaccination can be carried out by the BMC, then the Court will permit them to do so even though there is no policy by the Centre for such drives

According to a letter addressed by Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, Senior Advocate, to the Hon’ble Chief Justice/Hon’ble Vacation Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, dated 15.05.2021 at 5.28 PM by way of a House Motion, a Division Bench was constituted to hear the matter. A perusal of the letter would indicate that the request appears to be for issuance of Habeas Corpus, as the detention of detenu beyond 5.00 PM amounts to illegal detention as his remand was not accepted by the Magistrate. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, counsel for the Petitioner and Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy Additional Advocate General for the Respondents appeared before the Court. The matter was heard and decided upon by the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar.

The Additional Session Judge in Rohini Court heard and decided on an anticipatory bail application through the medium of video conferencing. Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused moved an anticipatory bail application based on an FIR lodged for the criminal offence of murder.

The petitioner filed the petition regarding non-adjustment of the excess amount paid for the period between when the parking site was allotted and till the time decision was taken and communicated to the petitioner.