Notes

1.Vinod Kumar vs Ashok Kumar Gandhi on 5 August, 2019
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: K Joseph, A Bhushan
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Leave granted.
These appeals, except one where leave to defend was granted, have been filed against the judgment of Delhi Signature Not Verified High Court dismissing the Rent Control Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.08.05 17:05:49 IST Reason:
Revisions filed by the appellants in which the order passed by the Rent Controller rejecting the application filed by the appellants-tenants seeking leave to defend in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 have been challenged.

2.In V.Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Specially Hospital and another, 2010(5) SCC 513, this Court again explaining the concept of per incuriam laid down following in paragraph 54:
“54. When a judgment is rendered by ignoring the provisions of the governing statute and earlier larger Bench decision on the point such decisions are rendered per incuriam. This concept of per incuriam has been explained in many decisions of this Court.

3.The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar on 11 January, 1952
Equivalent citations: AIR 1952 SC 75, 1952 CriLJ 510, 1952 1 SCR 284
Author: P Sastri
Bench: P Sastri, F Ali, M C Mahajan, Mukherjea, Das, C Ayyar, V Bose
JUDGMENT Patanjali Sastri, C.J.
This is an appeal by the State of West Bengal from a judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta quashing the conviction of the respondent by the Special Court established under section 3 of the West Bengal Special Courts Ordinance, 1949, (Ordinance No. 3 of 1949) which was replaced in March, 1950, by the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, (West Bengal Act X of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

4.Anand Bhushan & Ors. vs Union Of India on 28 May, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
The petitioners, by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 relying upon violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(c) & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, have prayed for striking down Sections 11(2), 12(2), 31, and 33A(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, as amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 ("Act", for short) and Rules 3, 47(1), 56(3), 56(4), 56(5), 56(6), 57, 59(7) and 61(5) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 ("Rules", for short). Further, a prayer is also made to pass an order prohibiting the respondent from making any appointment to the Copyright Board in terms of the impugned provisions.

5.In Shriram Vinyl & Chemical Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, (2001) 4 SCC 286, the benefit of a notification recommending grant of lower rate of duty was denied to the appellants.
The Supreme Court disagreeing with the narrow interpretation given by the Tribunal to the relevant words in the notification, held as under:-
The main ground on which the benefit of the aforesaid notification has been denied to the appellants is that serviceable parts out of the dismantled furnace were used besides some indigenous parts along with the imported parts and, therefore, a new furnace had not come into existence.