Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

helpless against such unforeseen circumstances and that there could be no actionable wrong. Even here, it is clear that the driver

under s. 33 shall be deemed to have been wrongly made and the ITO action under s. 155(5) will be entitled to withdraw such

complete or partial and is invariably accompanied by wrongful restraint, and or wrongful confinement and occasionally accompanied by assault, criminal tresspass, mischief to person ... would certainly lodge a complaint, on which suitable actions have to be taken against the wrong-doers which may result even in dismissal or removal

damages though admittedly traceable to the wrong in . respect of which an action is brought is too remote, it cannot be recovered ... directly and naturally or in the ordinary course of things from the wrongful act cannot be taken to be too remote. Vol. 37 of Halsbury

case was that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. If there was any wrong reasoning in the said order, it is, of course, open ... taking appropriate action. But in the present cas the order of the Board of Revenue says very little about any wrong reasoning in the order

consequence of a wrong or injury to his person or property, it has been held sufficiently comprehensive to embrace actions sounding in tort as well ... thing which he has not in possession, but which is wrongfully detained from him, or the assertion of ownership or proprietary interest or other direct

case was that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. If there was any wrong reasoning in the said order, it is, of course, open ... taking appropriate action. But in the present case the order of the Board of Revenue says very little about any wrong reasoning in the order

accidental circumstance of the Income-tax Officer taking an initial wrong plunge,as it were, in the stream of assessment. Similar argument have been addressed ... Income-tax officer in the choice of alternatives would block further action in the other modes available under the Act, more productive of tax revenue

with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. The petitioners in C. R. P, 3311 of 1980 instituted ... suit properties. The suit according to the petitioners, was instituted against wrong person and that the petitioners were not parties to the same

development rebate as illegal. 7. We, however, must hold that the action of the Commissioner was justified on the basis of a decision rendered ... Bench held that the development rebate must be treated as having been wrongly granted, because the condition for its grant had been violated