Rajasthan High Court: The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Commercial Tax, Jodhpur wherein the GST registration of the
The Collegium resolution was passed on 19-04-2023.
The Supreme Court collegium resolutions were passed on 19-04-2023.
The Supreme Court said that the power to take additional evidence in an appeal is to be exercised to prevent injustice and failure of justice, and thus, it must be exercised for good and valid reasons necessitating the acceptance of the prayer.
The Supreme Court affirmed the order passed by the High Court stating that the respondent assessee was neither entitled to the deductions nor profit earned under Section 80-IB on the amount of DEPB as well as Duty Drawback Scheme.
In the case at hand, a man had shot himself dead following a monetary dispute with the 74-year-old Advocate’s sone and two others.
After three rounds of litigation and 15 years of struggle, the petitioners got a conditional order of appointment to the post of Prabodhak.
The three Supreme Court collegium resolutions were passed dated 28-03-2023.
The Rajasthan High Court perused the entire scheme under Chapter VI of the 1987 Act and stated that the Lok Adalat had no adjudicatory power and by allowing the prayer of the PP to withdraw prosecution, it had exercised adjudicatory jurisdiction which was not vested in it.
The Court sought assistant of BCI and directed to implead its Secretary in the present petition and accordingly issued notice to BCI who may come up with appropriate suggestions in the matter towards framing of guidelines.
The Court held that the employer is prohibited by law from referring to or taking in consideration the judgment of conviction so as to deprive a successful candidate, who was a child in conflict with law at some point of time from being employed in Government service.
“A “resignation” of a Public Office, when made with an intention of relinquishing the office, accompanied by an act relinquishment, then nothing further is required. Resignation once accepted, cannot be allowed to be withdrawn.” Observed the High Court
Rajasthan High Court stated that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the appellant and mere recovery of money could not be a grounds to consider it as a bribe.
In a case of Cross FIRs relating to murder and attempt to murder, the Supreme Court has granted bail to the main accused in the murder case
It was observed that judicial discipline required that once the conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court that too after hearing the accused, the High Court should not have thereafter made any comment on the merits of the case.
The Court however, noted that neither the copies of the application for withdrawal of resignations nor the order of the Speaker refusing to accept the resignation were placed on record. In addition, the respondents did not even clarify as to what ought to be the fair and reasonable time for taking decision when such resignations are tendered.
Supreme Court has ordered that the Rajasthan High Court's impugned order being interlocutory in nature, shall not be treated as precedent for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner in other cases, and the question of law was kept open to be decided in an appropriate case.
The Rajasthan High Court, after perusing the certificate issued by Association of Indian Universities and the notification issued by Ministry of Education, stated that AIU had issued equivalence certificate with regard to the qualification of the petitioner making the petitioner eligible for the post.
Supreme Court said that prior approval of the Director of Education is mandatory as per Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989, on termination after the disciplinary proceedings.
“Sufficiency of material is one thing and supply of the same is another, which is mandatory in nature. Therefore, the non-supply of the material referred to in the reasons to believe would be enough to render the proceedings bad, even though the material for forming the opinion may be sufficient.” observed the Court.