SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

SEKAR REPORTER Blog

Meta AI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has approached the Supreme Court against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, alleging that she obstructed their investigation and removed crucial evidence during raids at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain. The ED claims that Banerjee, with the help of police, forcibly took away digital devices, electronic storage media, and key incriminating documents from the agency’s custody. ¹ ² ³

Uncategorized

Meta AI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has approached the Supreme Court against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, alleging that she obstructed their investigation and removed crucial evidence during raids at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain. The ED claims that Banerjee, with the help of police, forcibly took away digital devices, electronic storage media, and key incriminating documents from the agency’s custody. ¹ ² ³

[11/01, 10:11] Sekarreporter: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ed-approaches-supreme-court-after-calcutta-high-court-defers-hearing-in-i-pac-case-against-mamata-banerjee-2849788-2026-01-10 [11/01, 10:11] Meta AI: இ-பிஏசி வழக்கில் மாமதா பானர்ஜிக்கு எதிரான வழக்கில் கல்கத்தா உயர் நீதிமன்றம் விசாரணையை ஒத்திவைத்ததை தொடர்ந்து, அமலாக்கத்துறை உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தை அணுகியுள்ளது. இ-பிஏசி அலுவலகத்தில் சோதனை நடத்தியபோது முக்கிய ஆவணங்களை எடுத்துச் சென்றதாக கூறப்படும் குற்றச்சாட்டு...

Uncategorized

Sekarreporter: Key notes [11/01, 07:56] Meta AI: 📝 Key notes from the judgment: – Madras High Court quashed demands for surface compensation raised under Section 72 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. – Demands deemed arbitrary, unilateral, and incorrect in law. – 32 matters disposed of, including 19 Writ Appeals and 13 Writ Petitions. – Judgment delivered by Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C. Kumarappan. – Attachments, if any, to be raised. – No costs imposed.

[11/01, 07:29] Sekarreporter: “The impugned demands, are also, for the above reasons, arbitrary, unilateral and incorrect in law, and we quash the same. Consequently, attachments, if any, will stand raised. 75. In light of...

Uncategorized

Quashed HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICEANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN WA.Nos.1228, 312, 1291, 310, 313, 314 & 315 of 2023 and WA.Nos.432, 623, 433, 862, 757 & 624 of 2020 and

2025:MHC:2296 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on: 30.04.2025 Pronounced on : 10.09.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICEANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN WA.Nos.1228, 312, 1291, 310, 313, 314 &...

Uncategorized

J U D G M E N T R. MAHADEVAN, J. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals arise out of a common judgment and final order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi in ITA Nos. 935, 822, 853, and 961 of 2005, pertaining to the Assessment Year 1997-98. By the impugned judgment, the High Court remanded the matters to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh adjudication on the question of whether the shares held in the amalgamating company constituted stock-in-trade or capital assets, upon observing that, if the shares were, in fact, held as stock-in-trade, the transaction would fall outside the purview of Section 47(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , and its taxability would

2026 INSC 46 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2026 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2028 of 2021] M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES...

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com