Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 115 (6.54 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. A-One Granites vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 16 February, 2001

Union Of India And Others vs Indrajeet And Others on 10 December, 2019

"The concept of "per in curium" has been considered by the Apex Court time and again explaining that the expression means through inadvertence or a point of law is not consciously determined. If an issue is neither raised, nor argued, a decision by the Court after pondering over the issue in depth would not be precedent binding on the Courts. Per incurium are decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some statutory provisions or where the Court omits to consider a binding precedent of the same Court or the superior Court rendered on the same issue or where Court presumes something contrary to the facts of the case. (Vide Mamleshwar Prasad & Anr. Vs. Kanahaiya Lal (Dead), (1975) 2 SCC 232; Rajpur Ruda Meha & Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1980 SC 1707; A.R. Antule Vs. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38; Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 682; State of West Bengal Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 1 SCC 139; Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. Vs. Employees' Union & Anr., 1994 Supp (3) SCC 385; Pawan Alloys & Casting Pvt Ltd, Meerut Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 251; Ram Gopal Baheti Vs. Girdharilal Soni & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 112; Sarnam Singh Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors., (1999) 5 SCC 638; Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Vs. B. Satyanarayana Rao, AIR 2000 SC 1729; Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488; M/s. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 2293; A-One Granites Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 537; Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan, AIR 2002 SC 681; Director of Settlements A.P. & Ors. Vs. M.R. Apparao & Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 638; S. Shanmugavel Nadar Vs. State of T.N & Anr.., (2002) 8 SCC 361; State of Bihar Vs. Kalika Kuer Kalika Singh & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2443; and Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 492).
Allahabad High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dr Ashish Garg S/O Ramesh Chand Garg vs State Of Rajasthan (2023/Rjjp/003009) on 30 May, 2023

35. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of A-One Granite Vs. State UP & Ors. (supra), this Court finds that the Apex Court in the said case has found that if question regarding applicability of rules is even not referred to much less considered by the Court in the earlier appeals, then it cannot be said that the point is concluded by the same and it remains no longer res-integra.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Public Welfare Hospital vs State Of U.P. Thru' Chief Secy. & Others on 19 May, 2011

"The concept of "per in curium" has been considered by the Apex Court time and again explaining that the expression means through inadvertence or a point of law is not consciously determined. If an issue is neither raised, nor argued, a decision by the Court after pondering over the issue in depth would not be precedent binding on the Courts. Per incurium are decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some statutory provisions or where the Court omits to consider a binding precedent of the same Court or the superior Court rendered on the same issue or where Court presumes something contrary to the facts of the case. (Vide Mamleshwar Prasad & Anr. Vs. Kanahaiya Lal (Dead), (1975) 2 SCC 232; Rajpur Ruda Meha & Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1980 SC 1707; A.R. Antule Vs. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38; Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 682; State of West Bengal Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 1 SCC 139; Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. Vs. Employees' Union & Anr., 1994 Supp (3) SCC 385; Pawan Alloys & Casting Pvt Ltd, Meerut Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 251; Ram Gopal Baheti Vs. Girdharilal Soni & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 112; Sarnam Singh Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors., (1999) 5 SCC 638; Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Vs. B. Satyanarayana Rao, AIR 2000 SC 1729; Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488; M/s. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 2293; A-One Granites Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 537; Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan, AIR 2002 SC 681; Director of Settlements A.P. & Ors. Vs. M.R. Apparao & Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 638; S. Shanmugavel Nadar Vs. State of T.N & Anr.., (2002) 8 SCC 361; State of Bihar Vs. Kalika Kuer Kalika Singh & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2443; and Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 492).
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Dcit, Jaipur vs Rajasthan Financial Corporation, ... on 12 January, 2023

Submission dated 19/10/2022 S. No. Description of the case Page No. 14 ITA No. 199/JP/2022 Rajasthan Financial Corporation 1 Kunhayammed & Ors Vs State of Kerala & Anr. On 19 July, 1-17 2000 (Supreme Court of India) Submission dated 12/10/2022 S. No. Description of the case Page No. 1 M/s A-One Granites vs. State of U.P. & Ors on 16 February, 1-9 2001 (Supreme Court of India) 2 State Bank of U. P. and Anr. Vs. M/s Synthetics and Chemicals 10-32 Ltd. and Anr. 18.07.1991 (SC) 3 CIT vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 727 33-43 (Bombay) 4 S. P. Gupta vs. President of India and Ors. On 30 December, 44-107 1981 (SC) 5 Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anjuman Siddiquia Jamia Noorul Oloom ... vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 6 September, 2023

(Vide Mamleshwar Prasad & Anr. Vs. Kanahaiya Lal (Dead), (1975) 2 SCC 232; Rajpur Ruda Meha & Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1980 SC 1707; A.R. Antule Vs. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38; Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 682; State of West Bengal Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 1 SCC 139; Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. Vs. Employees' Union & Anr., 1994 Supp (3) SCC 385; Pawan Alloys & Casting Pvt Ltd, Meerut Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 251; Ram Gopal Baheti Vs. Girdharilal Soni & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 112; Sarnam Singh Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors., (1999) 5 SCC 638; Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Vs. B. Satyanarayana Rao, AIR 2000 SC 1729; Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488; M/s. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 2293; A-One Granites Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 537; Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan, AIR 2002 SC 681; Director of Settlements A.P. & Ors. Vs. M.R. Apparao & Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 638; S. Shanmugavel Nadar Vs. State of T.N & Anr.., (2002) 8 SCC 361; State of Bihar Vs. Kalika Kuer Kalika Singh & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2443; and Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 492).
Allahabad High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit vs Goldmine Shares And Finance Pvt. Ltd. on 30 April, 2008

It is in this context, it was held by this Court in Granite's case "as the question regarding applicability of Rule 72 of the Rues having not been even referred to, much less considered by Supreme Court in the earlier appeals, it cannot be said that the point is concluded by the same and no longer res Integra". This dictum will have no application to the case in hand on the question whether the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 398 of 1972 can be held to be a law declared under Article 141.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 63 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

Farhat Hussain Azad vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 10 December, 2004

50. The concept of "per in curium" has been considered by the Apex Court time and again explaining that the expression means through inadvertence or a point of law is not consciously determined. If an issue is neither raised, nor argued, a decision by the Court: after pondering over the issue in depth would not be precedent binding on the Courts. Per incurium are decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some statutory provisions or where the Court omits to consider a binding precedent of the same Court or the Superior Court rendered on the same issue or where Court presumes something contrary to the facts of the case. [Vide Mamleshwar Prasad and Anr. v. Kanahaiya Lal (Dead), (1975) 2 SCC 232; Rajpur Ruda Meha and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 1707; A.R. Antule v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38; Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 682; State of West Bengal v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 1 SCC 139; Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. and Anr. v. Employees' Union and Anr., 1994 Supp (3) SCC 385; Pawan Alloys and Casting Pvt. Ltd., Meerut v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 251; Ram Gopal Baheti v. Girdharilal Soni and Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 112; Sarnam Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors., (1999) 5 SCC 638; Government of Andhra Pradesh v. B. Satyanarayana Rao, AIR 2000 SC 1729; Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, (2000) 5 SCC 488; Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 2293; A-one Granites v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 537; Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan, AIR 2002 SC 681; Director of Settlements, A.P. and Ors. v. M.R. Apparao and Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 638; S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of T.N. and Anr., (2002) 8 SCC 361; State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer Kalika Singh and Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2443; and Manda Jaganath v. K.S. Rathnam and Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 492].
Allahabad High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 30 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next