Diageo Plc vs State Bank Of India on 12 October, 2022
(c) Shanthi Prasad Jain Vs. The Director of
Enforcement6 wherein, it is held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.78 seconds)Documents citing
Shanti Prasad Jain vs The Director Of Enforcement on 19 April, 1962
Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Mysore vs D.C. Basappa on 31 March, 1963
39. It is difficult to reconcile the two lines of cases noticed above. The cases cited on behalf of the revenue take the view that before a liability can be considered as a "debt", the same must have been ascertained and quantified. On the other hand, the cases on which the learned counsel for the assessee relied take the view that a liability ascertained or unascertained whether payable in praesenti or in future is a "debt". The question is not free from doubt. But I prefer to follow the decisions cited on behalf of the assessee. Some of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Shanti Prasad Jain v. Director of Enforcement accords with the view put forward on behalf of the assessee. This is what Venkatarama Iyer J., who spoke for the court, observed at page 250 :
The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Mysore, ... vs D.C. Basappa on 31 July, 1963
37. It is difficult to reconcile - the two lines of cases noticed above. The cases cited on behalf of the Revenue take the view that before a liability can be considered as a "debt", the same must have been ascertained and quantified. On the other hand, the cases on which the learned counsel for the assessee relied take the view that a liability ascertained or unascertained whether payable in praesenti or in future is a "debt". The question is not free from doubt. But I prefer to follow the decisions cited on behalf of the assessee. Some of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Shanti-prasad Jain v. Director of Enforcement, accord with the view put forward on behalf of the assessee. This is what Venkatarama lyer, J., who spoke for tha Court observed (at p. 1776):
New India Corporation vs The Director, Enforcement ... on 17 January, 1969
In the common counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the plea of invalidity of Sections 23 and 23-D of the Act raised by the petitioner is no longer available, the Supreme Court having upheld their validity in the case reported in Shanti Prasad Jain v. Director of Enforcement reiterated by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the Union of India v. Sukumar Pyne. . Regarding the plea of alleged harassment, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that in the circumstance such a plea is not available and that in any event, the Directorate will furnish the petitioner with whatever clarification' he may require to enable him to defend himself in the adjudication proceedings.
Y. Dass And Anr. vs State on 28 September, 1989
17. The Supreme Court, following its earlier decision in Shanti Prasad Jain v. Director of Enforcement, , held that Section 23(1) and Section 23-D of the Act of 1947 did not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court after comparing S. 23(1) as it stood before its amendment by Act XXXIX of 1957 with that Section after amendment, held that the effect of the amendment of S. 23(1) and the addition of S. 23-D by the amendment was that after the amendment, adjudication proceedings or criminal proceedings could be taken up in respect of contravention mentioned in S. 23(1) while before the amendment only criminal proceedings before a Court could be instituted to punish the offender. The Supreme Court, quoting the view taken in the case of Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh, . held that the general principle that alterations in procedure are retrospective unless there be some good reason against it was attracted to the case and that the principle underlying Art. 20 of the Constitution, would not constitute a good reason to hold that alterations in procedure brought about by Sections 23(1)(a) and S. 23-D by Act No. XXXIX of 1957 were prospective in nature. Negativing the contention urged on behalf of the respondent on the basis of the principle of Art. 20 of the Constitution that a substantive vested right to be tried by an ordinary Court existed in favor of the respondent before the amendment, the Supreme Court held that no person has a vested right in any course of procedure and that the said ordinary rule should prevail in the case before its. The Supreme Court also held that the principle underlying Art. 20 of the Constitution does not make a right to any course of, procedure a vested right. Interpretation S. 23(1) as substituted by Act XXXIX of 1957, the Supreme Court held that there was no breach of Art. 20 of the Constitution. The appeal by the Union of India was accepted with costs there and in the High Court and the petition filed by the respondent under Art. 226 was dismissed.
North West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs State Of Karnataka, By Its Secretary, ... on 22 March, 2005
In SHANTHI PRASAD JAIN v. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had held that a contingent debt is not a debt, as it has no present existence. A debt is a sum of money payable under an existing obligation. It may be payable forthwith or a future date. The relevant portion is as follows;
Smt. H.S. Brunda vs State By Inspector Of Police on 20 April, 2018
24. The question came up for consideration
before a Constitution Bench of this Court
in Shanti Prasad Jain vs. The Director of
Enforcement, wherein, inter alia, it was held that
the initial burden would be on the Department.
Canara Bank vs Canara Sales Corporation And Ors. on 25 June, 1973
15. We shall now proceed to examine the liability of the first defendant. The relationship between the customer of a bank and the bank as held by the Supreme Court in Shanti Prasad Jain v. Director of Enforcement, is that of a creditor and debtor. When the signature on a cheque is forged, then it has to be held that the bank had no authority to make payment against the said cheque and that the bank would be liable to credit the account with the said sum or to pay the said sum on demand unless the bank is able to show that the customer cannot recover either on account of adoption, estoppel or ratification.
1