1. The appellant-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20th July, 2011, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in an intra-Court Appeal1, which was directed against the...

1. Leave granted.

1. Leave granted.

1. The aggrieved appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Writ Appeal No. 72 of...

1. This appeal by special leave is at the instance of the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH), Government of India...

1. These appeals, by special leave, are at the instance of affected landowners.

1. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Shri A.N. Venugopala Gowda and Counsel Shri P.B. Suresh for the appellant and the respondents, respectively.  

1. This is a case that involves classification of goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Against the decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the appellant approached the High Court in exercise of...

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeals papers

1. This is a case that involves classification of goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Against the decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the appellant approached the High Court in exercise of...