U.K. consumer rights group ‘Which?’ is filing a legal claim against Apple under competition law on behalf of some 40 million users of iCloud, its cloud storage service. The collective proceeding lawsuit, which is seeking £3 billion in compensation damages (around $3.8 billion at current exchange rates), alleges that Apple has broken competition rules by […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

1. By the present petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to transfer him to New Delhi from Jodhpur for further treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi.

2. Issue notice.

3. Notice is accepted by Mr.Shrey Sharawat, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Order dated 23.02.2022, passed by this Court in an earlier petition filed by the petitioner, being W.P.(C) 857/2022, the petitioner joined at STC, BSF, Jodhpur. AIIMS, Jodhpur, however, required all the medical documents and data of the petitioner's treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi to be forwarded to them. The respondents forwarded this request to AIIMS, New Delhi vide letter dated 28.04.2022, however, the said documents/data were not supplied by AIIMS, New Delhi to AIIMS, Jodhpur. The petitioner claims that because of this, he has to travel from Jodhpur to Delhi each time for his treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi. He, therefore, prays for being transferred back to Delhi in order to have proper treatment.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Orders dated 14.09.2024 and 26.10.2024 passed by the IG/Principal, CTC CRPF, Panihar, Gwalior, respondent no. 3 herein, directing the recovery of the alleged inadmissible training allowance granted to the petitioners.

2. In the Impugned Order dated 14.09.2024 itself, the petitioners have been granted an opportunity to make a representation against the same within fifteen days from the date of issuance of the said notice.

CM APPL.63468-469/2024

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM APPL.63470/2024

2. The present application has been filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, „CPC‟) seeking condonation of 99 days delay in re-filing the appeal.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 99 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

4. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. FAO(COMM) 213/2024 & CM APPL.63467/2024

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The revision petition bearing CRL.REV.P. No. 444/2024 has been filed on behalf of Smt. Shalini Kapoor who is wife of the revisionist in CRL.REV.P. No. 685/2024. For the sake of convenience, this Court is treating the position of parties as per the petition bearing no. 444/2024. The brief facts leading to the instant revision petitions are as follows:

a) The petitioner and the respondent got married in the year 2010 as per the Hindu rituals and a child was born out of the wedlock in the year 2013.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The revision petition bearing CRL.REV.P. No. 444/2024 has been filed on behalf of Smt. Shalini Kapoor who is wife of the revisionist in CRL.REV.P. No. 685/2024. For the sake of convenience, this Court is treating the position of parties as per the petition bearing no. 444/2024. The brief facts leading to the instant revision petitions are as follows:

a) The petitioner and the respondent got married in the year 2010 as per the Hindu rituals and a child was born out of the wedlock in the year 2013.

1. The petitioner is invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by instituting the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) to issue writ of mandamus/direction to institute comprehensive enquiry by appropriate agency preferably by C.B.I, for fixation of responsibility on those officials and contractors involved in the construction of multistoried complex of 816 flats at Jhilmil Colony, Phase - II in the year 1986-88.

(bi) the respondent to pay sum of Rs. 12,10,000/- to the petitioners as a compensation on account of loss of dependency, reimbursement of medical expenses, repair of balcony, loss of love & affection, mental agony and harassment suffered due to sudden demise of Shri Suresh Rustagi on 20.07.2000, as a result of collapse of balcony, of the flat no. 121-C, IInd Floor, Pocket A-1, Jhilmil, Phase-II, Delhi - 110095.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. The instant appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, impugns order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"], whereby, the ITAT ruled in favour of the respondent/Assessee and dismissed the appeal preferred against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CITA"]. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

"A. Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"] fall into error in holding that the entity assessed was no longer in existence having regard to the circumstance that M/s. Infovision Information Services Pvt. Ltd. merely underwent a name change and had responded to the Revenue's notices, having regard to Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"]?

13.11.2024 MINI PUSHKARNA, J:

I.A. 14145/2023 (Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, 1908)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking interim injunction for restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising and/or promoting by using the mark/ trade name „ALDER BIOCHEM‟ and any other mark/ trade name/ label/ device that contains the trademark BIOCHEM.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 along with Arbitration Appeal Nos.86 & 88 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.11.2024

1. Arbitration Appeal No.9 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant.

Versus Rajesh Kaptyaksh. ...Respondent. 2. Arbitration Appeal No.86 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Narain Singh. ...Respondent. 3. Arbitration Appeal No.88 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant. Versus Babu Ram. ...Respondent. Coram:

This order shall dispose of four revision pe&&ons &tled above, as all of them are between same par&es and pertain to the same demised premises. In order to avoid confusion, par&es shall be referred as "landlord" and "tenant", i.e. as per their status before the trial Court.

2.1 Admi*edly, the demised premises, i.e. Shed No.433-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was originally allo*ed to Smt. Swaraj Katari by Chandigarh Small Industries Department Corpora&on Limited. M/s R.D. Sales Corpora&on through its proprietor Rakesh Gupta (pe oner herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the right side por&on to the extent of 12 Ft. X 60 Ft., vide rent note dated 19.10.1994 on monthly rent of ₹6,000/- including water and electricity charges, for a period of 11 months. Said rent was later on Page no.2 out of 47 pages 2 of 47 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1662 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1663 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146800 CR No.1664 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146802 CR No.6078 of 2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146806 enhanced to ₹8,500/-.

This order shall dispose of four revision pe&&ons &tled above, as all of them are between same par&es and pertain to the same demised premises. In order to avoid confusion, par&es shall be referred as "landlord" and "tenant", i.e. as per their status before the trial Court.

2.1 Admi*edly, the demised premises, i.e. Shed No.433-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was originally allo*ed to Smt. Swaraj Katari by Chandigarh Small Industries Department Corpora&on Limited. M/s R.D. Sales Corpora&on through its proprietor Rakesh Gupta (pe oner herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the right side por&on to the extent of 12 Ft. X 60 Ft., vide rent note dated 19.10.1994 on monthly rent of ₹6,000/- including water and electricity charges, for a period of 11 months. Said rent was later on Page no.2 out of 47 pages 2 of 47 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1662 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1663 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146800 CR No.1664 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146802 CR No.6078 of 2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146806 enhanced to ₹8,500/-.

This order shall dispose of four revision pe&&ons &tled above, as all of them are between same par&es and pertain to the same demised premises. In order to avoid confusion, par&es shall be referred as "landlord" and "tenant", i.e. as per their status before the trial Court.

2.1 Admi*edly, the demised premises, i.e. Shed No.433-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was originally allo*ed to Smt. Swaraj Katari by Chandigarh Small Industries Department Corpora&on Limited. M/s R.D. Sales Corpora&on through its proprietor Rakesh Gupta (pe oner herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the right side por&on to the extent of 12 Ft. X 60 Ft., vide rent note dated 19.10.1994 on monthly rent of ₹6,000/- including water and electricity charges, for a period of 11 months. Said rent was later on Page no.2 out of 47 pages 2 of 47 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1662 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1663 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146800 CR No.1664 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146802 CR No.6078 of 2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146806 enhanced to ₹8,500/-.

This order shall dispose of four revision pe&&ons &tled above, as all of them are between same par&es and pertain to the same demised premises. In order to avoid confusion, par&es shall be referred as "landlord" and "tenant", i.e. as per their status before the trial Court.

2.1 Admi*edly, the demised premises, i.e. Shed No.433-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh was originally allo*ed to Smt. Swaraj Katari by Chandigarh Small Industries Department Corpora&on Limited. M/s R.D. Sales Corpora&on through its proprietor Rakesh Gupta (pe oner herein) was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the right side por&on to the extent of 12 Ft. X 60 Ft., vide rent note dated 19.10.1994 on monthly rent of ₹6,000/- including water and electricity charges, for a period of 11 months. Said rent was later on Page no.2 out of 47 pages 2 of 47 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1662 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146797 CR No.1663 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146800 CR No.1664 of 2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146802 CR No.6078 of 2018 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:146806 enhanced to ₹8,500/-.

1. By way of present bail application, the petitioner/applicant seeks regular bail in the proceedings emanating out of ECIR/35/DLZO/I/2022 dated 16.09.2022 which was registered on the basis of the FIR bearing No. 9A dated 23.11.2016 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter, the CBI), AC-III, New Delhi under Sections 120-B of IPC & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988.

2. The allegations made in the aforesaid FIR, in nutshell, are that Mr. Amanatullah Khan, i.e. the main accused, in his tenure as chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board (hereafter, the „DWB‟), misused his position from March 2016 - October 2016 to appoint and engage relatives and other known persons to various posts in the DWB, from which they derived pecuniary benefits. It was further alleged that the tenancies of DWF properties were allotted without inviting bids and leased out only on reserve price. There were also allegations of misuse of DWB funds.

judgment and order dated 12 January 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing (A-1) Appeal Nos.396/2015 and 95/2016 and confirming the eviction decree dated 25 June 2015 passed by the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996. By decreeing the suit, the Small Causes Court has directed the Revision Applicants (Defendant Nos.1 to 8) to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.

B. FACTS 2) Plaintiff claims to be the owner of Godown No. 63 in

Sitaram Mill, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 001 are the suit premises. By Agreement dated 2 July 1975 entered into between the Plaintiff- Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd and Defendant No.1-MBK Enterprises, Plaintiff granted lease in respect of portion of the Godown No. 63 admeasuring 8800 sq. ft (suit premises) in favour of Defendant No.1 for a period of 60 years at monthly rent of Rs.4,488/-. Plaintiff found Defendant No.2-Mid-Day Publications Pvt. Ltd. in occupation of the suit premises and accordingly filed R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996 on 9 February 1996 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds of (i) unlawful subletting by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 (ii) commission of acts contrary to the provisions of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and (iii) carrying out structural additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises and erecting structures of permanent nature without 12 November 2024 Neeta Sawant CRA-120-2023-CRA-215-2023-FC obtaining written permission from Plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement contending that under the covenants of lease, it was entitled to grant sublease in respect of the suit premises and that accordingly Defendant No.1 have subleased the premises to M/s. Mangla International Pvt. Ltd and Ors. who are associate companies having Directors from the same family and the said companies in turn had given the premises on license to Defendant No.2-Mid-Day. Defendant No.1 denied the allegations regarding to commission of act contrary to the provisions of section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, as well as, erecting of structure of permanent nature without the consent of the landlord. Defendant No.2-Mid-Day also filed its Written Statement admitting its use and occupation of the suit premises from July 1995 but pleaded that such occupation was under agreement with Defendant No.1. Mid-Day also denied the allegations in the plaint.

judgment and order dated 12 January 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing (A-1) Appeal Nos.396/2015 and 95/2016 and confirming the eviction decree dated 25 June 2015 passed by the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996. By decreeing the suit, the Small Causes Court has directed the Revision Applicants (Defendant Nos.1 to 8) to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.

B. FACTS 2) Plaintiff claims to be the owner of Godown No. 63 in

Sitaram Mill, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 001 are the suit premises. By Agreement dated 2 July 1975 entered into between the Plaintiff- Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd and Defendant No.1-MBK Enterprises, Plaintiff granted lease in respect of portion of the Godown No. 63 admeasuring 8800 sq. ft (suit premises) in favour of Defendant No.1 for a period of 60 years at monthly rent of Rs.4,488/-. Plaintiff found Defendant No.2-Mid-Day Publications Pvt. Ltd. in occupation of the suit premises and accordingly filed R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996 on 9 February 1996 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds of (i) unlawful subletting by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 (ii) commission of acts contrary to the provisions of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and (iii) carrying out structural additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises and erecting structures of permanent nature without 12 November 2024 Neeta Sawant CRA-120-2023-CRA-215-2023-FC obtaining written permission from Plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement contending that under the covenants of lease, it was entitled to grant sublease in respect of the suit premises and that accordingly Defendant No.1 have subleased the premises to M/s. Mangla International Pvt. Ltd and Ors. who are associate companies having Directors from the same family and the said companies in turn had given the premises on license to Defendant No.2-Mid-Day. Defendant No.1 denied the allegations regarding to commission of act contrary to the provisions of section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, as well as, erecting of structure of permanent nature without the consent of the landlord. Defendant No.2-Mid-Day also filed its Written Statement admitting its use and occupation of the suit premises from July 1995 but pleaded that such occupation was under agreement with Defendant No.1. Mid-Day also denied the allegations in the plaint.

judgment and order dated 12 January 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing (A-1) Appeal Nos.396/2015 and 95/2016 and confirming the eviction decree dated 25 June 2015 passed by the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996. By decreeing the suit, the Small Causes Court has directed the Revision Applicants (Defendant Nos.1 to 8) to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.

B. FACTS 2) Plaintiff claims to be the owner of Godown No. 63 in

Sitaram Mill, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 001 are the suit premises. By Agreement dated 2 July 1975 entered into between the Plaintiff- Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd and Defendant No.1-MBK Enterprises, Plaintiff granted lease in respect of portion of the Godown No. 63 admeasuring 8800 sq. ft (suit premises) in favour of Defendant No.1 for a period of 60 years at monthly rent of Rs.4,488/-. Plaintiff found Defendant No.2-Mid-Day Publications Pvt. Ltd. in occupation of the suit premises and accordingly filed R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996 on 9 February 1996 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds of (i) unlawful subletting by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 (ii) commission of acts contrary to the provisions of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and (iii) carrying out structural additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises and erecting structures of permanent nature without 12 November 2024 Neeta Sawant CRA-120-2023-CRA-215-2023-FC obtaining written permission from Plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement contending that under the covenants of lease, it was entitled to grant sublease in respect of the suit premises and that accordingly Defendant No.1 have subleased the premises to M/s. Mangla International Pvt. Ltd and Ors. who are associate companies having Directors from the same family and the said companies in turn had given the premises on license to Defendant No.2-Mid-Day. Defendant No.1 denied the allegations regarding to commission of act contrary to the provisions of section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, as well as, erecting of structure of permanent nature without the consent of the landlord. Defendant No.2-Mid-Day also filed its Written Statement admitting its use and occupation of the suit premises from July 1995 but pleaded that such occupation was under agreement with Defendant No.1. Mid-Day also denied the allegations in the plaint.

The above Original Petition has been filed by the successful Award Holder under Chapter I Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to recognize the Final Award dated 22.02.2021 and the addendum to the Final Award dated 08.03.2021.

______________ Page No 3 of 184 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.186 of 2023

2. The respective legal contentions of the Petitioner (the claimant) and the Award Debtor Respondent No.2 (the Engineering Company) and the Award Debtor Respondent No.3 (the Project Company) shall be adverted after narrating the facts of the case. I propose to narrate the facts in two parts.

These four appeals filed by two separate assessees have arisen from separate appellate orders passed by learned Commissioners of Income-tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad for the assessment years, 2010-11 & 2011-12.

2. Since facts and issues involved in all these four appeals are similar which is agreed to by both the rival parties before us and that these four appeals were heard together, we deem it appropriate to dispose of all these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience. We will first take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2498/Ahd/2013 for A.Y. 2010-11, and our decision in this appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to remaining three appeals.

.

96. It would be evident from the above discussion that the claims for refund under the said two enactments constitute an independent regimen. Every decision favourable to an assessee/manufacturer, whether on the question of classification, valuation or any other issue, does not automatically entail refund. Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act and Section 27 of the Contract Act, whether before or after 1991 amendment - as interpreted by us herein - make every refund claim subject to proof of not passing-on the burden of duty to others. Even if a suit is filed, the very same condition operates. Similarly, the High Court while examining its jurisdiction under Article 226 - and this Court while acting under Article 32 - would insist upon the said condition being satisfied before ordering refund. Unless the claimant for refund establishes that he has not passed on the burden of duty to another, he would not be entitled to refund, whatever be the proceedings and whichever be the forum. Section 11B/Section 27 are constitutionally valid, as explained by us hereinbefore. They have to be applied and followed implicitly wherever they are applicable.

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.06.2023 seeking information on following points:-

"1) A certified copy of complaint filed by Neha Kumari /Neha Verma against me between September 2022 to November 2022 addressed to the Director General CISF."

The CPIO vide letter dated 20.06.2023 replied as under:-

"02. It is to inform that under provision of Section-24 of RTI Act 2005, the information sought by you vide representation dated 09/06/2023, cannot be provided as the CISF is an Armed Force of Union and exempted from providing information except for the cases of corruption and human rights violation. The information sought by you does not fali just within the ambit of the two categories mentioned above."

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 05.01.2023 seeking the following information:

Page 1 of 5

"मेरे द्वारा की गयी शिकायत श्रीमतत मुक्ता खलखो िहडोल के कथित बीमा पॉशलसी राशि 1 करोड़ रुपये की शिकायत पर की गयी जााँच एवं काययवाही पर सभी ब्यक्क्तयों के बयान एवं दस्तावेज की सत्यापपत प्रतत उपलब्ध कराये। इस जााँच में अंततम तनर्यय ददनााँक 28.12.2022 के ररपोर्य सदहत दस्तावेज उपलब्ध कराये।"

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.01.2023 stating as under:

"आपके द्वारा चाही गयी जानकारी सूचना का अथधकार अथधतनयम 2005 की धारा 8 (1) (d) एवं 8 (1) (j) के तहत संरक्षित है , अतः आपको उपलब्ध कराने में असमिय हैं।"

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 08.05.2023 seeking the following information:

Page 1 of 5

"1 रे ल्वे वर्कशॉप लाल गठ इस्तिथ तटोर मे चिुथक श्रेणी र्मकचारी सुमेर पुत्र अमजद अली निवासी सवोदय बतिी बीर्ािेर र्े इस र्ायाकलय मे र्ब पदभार ग्रहण कर्या, प्रमाणणि प्रनि।

2 सुमेर द्वारा नियुस्ति र्े समय प्रतिुि समति दतिावेजो र्ी प्रमाणणि प्रनिललपप।

3 सुमेर र्ो नियुस्ति आदे श एव पदभार ग्रहण र्रिे र्े आदे श र्ी प्रमाणणि प्रनि।"

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 25.05.2023 stating as under:

"उपरोति संदलभकि पत्र र्े माध्यम से आवेदि र्िाक द्वारा मांगी गई जािर्ारी िि ृ ीय पक्षर्ार से सम्बस्धिि होिे र्े र्ारण आरटीआई अधिनियम 2005 र्े नियम सख्या 11 र्े िहि प्रदाि िही र्ी जा सर्िी।"

:

The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 23.03.2023 seeking the following information:

Page 1 of 5

"In continuation to RTI Application No- DMRCP/R/E/22/00489, received to you dated 15-11-2022 please provide some more details which were not given, related to the same points mentioned below:

1. My policy number of superannuation (GSPS) is 321581 and my LIC ID is 1779. Please provide my annuity number for the same.

2. In my last application number stated above I desired for DMRC pay scale comparison with the CDA pay scale which was denied to me. As an exemployee of your prestigious organization, I can help, it is available at D2 in the HR Manual- A Compendium of service rules in DMRC. Kindly provide.

:

The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 21.02.2023 seeking the following information:

"My letter dated 31/8/2021 addressed to The SDM, LIC of India, Nadiad Division with subject of Individual Cash Prize (Awards) Scheme time duration 1/1/2007 to 31/3/2007, which is enclosed herewith, as per given below details.

1. Detail procedure followed by the competent authority in respect of disposal and final reply of my letter and payment of my Individual Cash Awards (Prize).

2. Certified copies of All details of Notes / Remarks / Comments / Opinion / Decisions put up on the file by the concerned officers / managers during the procedure along with their names, designation, salary, roll no., educational qualification, gross annual salary and contact no.

:

The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 21.02.2023 seeking the following information:

"My letter dated 31/8/2021 addressed to The SDM, LIC of India, Nadiad Division with subject of Individual Cash Prize (Awards) Scheme time duration 1/1/2007 to 31/3/2007, which is enclosed herewith, as per given below details.

1. Detail procedure followed by the competent authority in respect of disposal and final reply of my letter and payment of my Individual Cash Awards (Prize).

2. Certified copies of All details of Notes / Remarks / Comments / Opinion / Decisions put up on the file by the concerned officers / managers during the procedure along with their names, designation, salary, roll no., educational qualification, gross annual salary and contact no.

Valoarea producţiei agricole a blocului comunitar a scăzut cu 1,5% în 2023, comparativ cu 2022, până la 537,1 miliarde de euro, însă România se numără printre ţările UE a căror valoare a producţiei agricole a crescut de la un an la altul, arată datele publicate miercuri de Eurostat. Scăderea uşoară din 2023 vine după o ...

The post Eurostat: România a fost al șaptelea producător agricol din UE în 2023 appeared first on Forbes Romania.

Președintele ales Donald Trump a surprins observatorii politici marți seară prin nominalizarea prezentatorului Fox News, Pete Hegseth, pentru funcția de secretar al apărării. „Pete și-a petrecut întreaga viață ca un războinic pentru trupele noastre și pentru țară,” a declarat Trump într-un comunicat. „Pete este dur, inteligent și un adevărat susținător al politicii America First. Cu ...

The post Trump îl nominalizează pe veteranul și prezentatorul Fox News, Pete Hegseth, pentru funcția de secretar al apărării appeared first on Forbes Romania.

Lumea companiilor independente constituie adevăratul laborator creativ al industriei orologere. Mediul acesta divers și discret al micilor Case guvernat de talentul și experiența maeștrilor și de capriciile colecționarilor se dovedește deosebit de efervescent. Vă prezint de această dată trei mărci noi care intră pe această piață selectă, semnalându-și prezența prin lansarea unor modele remarcabile. Guebly. ...

The post Din lumea orologerilor independenți appeared first on Forbes Romania.

Grupul Bitdefender, cea mai importantă companie din domeniul tehnologiei cu sediul central în România, a înregistrat venituri nete de 391,9 milioane de dolari, în creștere cu 16% comparativ cu anul anterior, și un profit operațional ajustat (EBITDA) de 85 de milioane de dolari, cu 21,7% mai mare decât în 2022. Florin Talpeș, CEO și cofondator ...

The post Florin Talpeș: grupul Bitdefender a avut venituri nete de peste 391 mil. dolari și profit operațional de 85 mil. dolari în 2023, cele mai mari din istorie appeared first on Forbes Romania.

Moov Leasing, un start-up românesc lansat de Bogdan Speteanu și Mircea Dihel, propune o schimbare radicală în leasingul auto, transformând experiența de utilizare a unei mașini într-una simplă și accesibilă, la fel ca utilizarea unui telefon mobil. După 20 de ani de experiență la BCR, timp în care a ocupat mai multe funcții de conducere, printre care și ...

The post Bogdan Speteanu, Moov Leasing: “Utilizatorii pot închiria o mașină pe o perioadă medie, de la unu la cinci ani, și au posibilitatea de a o schimba în funcție de nevoile de moment” appeared first on Forbes Romania.

Brazil Murder: സഹപ്രവർത്തകൻ കൊലപ്പെടുത്തിയ സ്ത്രീയുടെ മൃതദേഹം ഒരു ദിവസം കഴിഞ്ഞാണ് കണ്ടെത്തിയത്. 

Known for his humility, Ratan Tata leaves behind a legacy of compassion and generosity

Krasinski's win adds him to an esteemed group of past honourees like George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Idris Elba, and Michael B. Jordan.

Talking about Priyanka Chopra, Arjun admitted that she was already a big star when they made the film.

Rupali Ganguly's lawyer Sana Raees Khan of Bigg Boss 17-fame reveals why Anupamaa actress is asking for Rs 50 crore as defamation compensation from her stepdaughter Esha Verma.

This actor, who once used to starve for days, gatecrash film sets for food, later became a superstar.

Bhojpuri actress Akshara Singh receives extortion threat, investigation underway.

At 9 am on Wednesday, the air quality was 'very poor' with a reading of 366 which later rose to 418.

The city experienced heavy rainfall on Wednesday night, and the IMD bulletin indicates that several isolated areas of the capital are expected to see heavy downpours on Thursday.

Born in the US to Indian immigrant parents, Ramaswamy gained wealth through his biotech company