Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 505 (3.12 seconds)
Documents citing S.P. Gupta vs President Of India And Ors. on 30 December, 1981

Vikas Jatav vs Directorate General Of Vigilance on 17 April, 2025

".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
Central Information Commission Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gora Chand Chatterjee vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 27 April, 2023

".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
Central Information Commission Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Punhani - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Sharma And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 21 May, 2004

29. Following the principles laid down in the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, namely ; S. P. Gupta's case, a Full Bench of this Court in Public Service Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2000 (4) ESC 2311, while dealing with the question regarding maintainability of a writ petition filed by the Public Service Tribunal Bar Association challenging the U. P. Public Services Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2000, observed in paragraph 66, which is extracted below :
Allahabad High Court Cites 91 - Cited by 401 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Dhrangadhra Municipality vs Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. (F.A. ... on 6 July, 1987

In the light of the aforesaid observations in that case, the Division Bench took the view that the appeal filed by the defendant, Union of India, representing the Excise Department was required to be allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court granting restitution of various amounts to the plaintiff, Tata Chemicals, were required to be set aside. It is true that in that case, it has been found that it was an admitted position on the record of the case that the burden of tax was passed on to the consumers. But, in the present case, the situation is much worse for the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff never whispers even in the plaint that it had borne the burden of tax and not passed on the same to the consumer. If the plaintiff does not plead such a case, there would arise no occasion for the defendant to meet such a case nor would there remain any need to frame an issue on the point. In fact, such a question would not form part of any controversy between the parties. It is further interesting to note that apart from the absence of pleading on this issue, the plaintiff, in the present case, has led no evidence whatsoever and it is only the defendant which has examined witnesses. The plaintiff had sat tight on its pleading and stacked its case only on the allegation that collection of octroi was illegal and to prove only this case, led documentary evidence. The documentary evidence has revealed that from time to time, various amounts were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant under protest as deposit towards octroi dues. The defendant had maintained a separate account, crediting various amounts received from the plaintiff as deposits towards octroi. Yet ultimately, this account was squared off and on September 26, 1960, all these amounts standing in the deposit account were appropriated by the municipality towards octroi dues and the plaintiffs account was debited accordingly. It is, therefore, obvious that various amounts which the plaintiff might have paid over the years under protest as deposits were admittedly towards alleged octroi dues of the defendant and the appropriation was also done by the defendant of the entire amount standing at the foot of the deposit account as octroi dues of the defendant. In this connection we may state that the plaintiff had produced the entire bunch of documents showing various amounts remitted by the plaintiff to the defendant towards dues of the defendant, though of course under protest over the years to be kept as deposits with the defendants till the controversy between the parties which was pending before the Supreme Court was resolved These documents are from exhibits 177 to 296. They show various amounts remitted from time to time by the plaintiff to the defendant towards octroi dues. By way of a specimen, we may refer to exhibit 288 which shows that an amount of Rs. 4,221.59 was sent by cheque by the plaintiff to the defendant in respect of demand of octroi dues from the plaintiff for the month of September, 1956. It is seen that prior to September 26, 1960, the plaintiff used to send from time to time to the defendant various amounts by cheques towards the octroi claim of the defendant Merely because they were kept in a separate account, it cannot be said that payments were not made towards the octroi claim of the defendant It is also interesting to note that neither before the trial court nor before this court, even a faint suggestion was made that the entire burden of tax amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant towards alleged claim of octroi dues of the defendant over the years was not passed on by the plaintiff, which is a manufacturer, to its customers and that the entire burden was suffered by the plaintiff alone. When such a case is not pleaded nor proved and when the plaintiff has not ventured to open its mouth even to remotely suggest such a possibility, it must be held that this is a case in which the plaintiff cannot dare suggest that it has not passed on the burden of octroi duty to the customers and that over the years it had suffered the burden by itself. Consequently, it must be held that in the present case, the plaintiff has not suffered any incidence of tax meaning thereby, it had passed it on the whole hog to the customers and, therefore, what was the admitted position before. the Division Bench in the case of Tata Chemicals [1983] (3) GLH 985, remains an uncontroverted one in the present proceedings as the plaintiff has not tried to challenge that position at all. But, even apart from that, when the basic requirements of section 72 are not pleaded by the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected even at the threshold as it has no completed cause of action.
Gujarat High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Subir Chowdhury vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 August, 1983

11. The next and the most crucial question that requires consideration in this case is whether a particular Advocate, whether he be an Advocate of the High Court or a Subordinate Court has the right to come before this Court and pray for an appropriate Writ demanding that his case should be considered for appointment as a Judge of this High Court? The answer is obviously "no". The Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Gupta v. The President of India observed :
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dhrangadhra Municipality vs Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. on 6 July, 1987

In the light of the aforesaid observations in that case, the Division Bench took the view that the appeal filed by the defendant, Union of India, representing the Excise Department was required to be allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court granting restitution of various amounts to the plaintiff, Tata Chemicals, were required to be set aside. It is true that in that case, it has been found that it was an admitted position on the record of the case that the burden of tax was passed on to the consumers. But, in the present case, the situation is much worse for the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff never whispers even in the plaint that it had borne the burden of tax and not passed on the same to the consumer. If the plaintiff does not plead such a case, there would arise no occasion for the defendant to meet such a case nor would there remain any need to frame an issue on the point. In fact, such a question would not form part of any controversy between the parties. It is further interesting to note that apart from the absence of pleading on this issue, the plaintiff, in the present case, has led no evidence whatsoever and it is only the defendant which has examined witnesses. The plaintiff had sat tight on its pleading and stacked its case only on the allegation that collection of octroi was illegal and to prove only this case, led documentary evidence. The documentary evidence has revealed that from time to time, various amounts were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant under protest as deposit towards octroi dues. The defendant had maintained a separate account, crediting various amounts received from the plaintiff as deposits towards octroi. Yet ultimately, this account was squared off and on September 26, 1960, all these amounts standing in the deposit account were appropriated by the municipality towards octroi dues and the plaintiff's account was debited accordingly. It is, therefore, obvious that various amounts which the plaintiff might have paid over the years under protest as deposits were admittedly towards alleged octroi dues of the defendant and the appropriation was also done by the defendant of the entire amount standing at the foot of the deposit account as octroi dues of the defendant. In this connection we may state that the plaintiff had produced the entire bunch of documents showing various amounts remitted by the plaintiff to the defendant towards dues of the defendant, though of course under protest over the years to be kept as deposits with the defendants till the controversy between the parties which was pending before the Supreme Court was resolved These documents are from exhibits 177 to 296. They show various amounts remitted from time to time by the plaintiff to the defendant towards octroi dues. By way of a specimen, we may refer to exhibit 288 which shows that an amount of Rs. 4,221.59 was sent by cheque by the plaintiff to the defendant in respect of demand of octroi dues from the plaintiff for the month of September, 1956. It is seen that prior to September 26, 1960, the plaintiff used to send from time to time to the defendant various amounts by cheques towards the octroi claim of the defendant Merely because they were kept in a separate account, it cannot be said that payments were not made towards the octroi claim of the defendant It is also interesting to note that neither before the trial court nor before this court, even a faint suggestion was made that the entire burden of tax amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant towards alleged claim of octroi dues of the defendant over the years was not passed on by the plaintiff, which is a manufacturer, to its customers and that the entire burden was suffered by the plaintiff alone. When such a case is not pleaded nor proved and when the plaintiff has not ventured to open its mouth even to remotely suggest such a possibility, it must be held that this is a case in which the plaintiff cannot dare suggest that it has not passed on the burden of octroi duty to the customers and that over the years it had suffered the burden by itself. Consequently, it must be held that in the present case, the plaintiff has not suffered any incidence of tax meaning thereby, it had passed it on the whole hog to the customers and, therefore, what was the admitted position before. the Division Bench in the case of Tata Chemicals [1983] (3) GLH 985, remains an uncontroverted one in the present proceedings as the plaintiff has not tried to challenge that position at all. But, even apart from that, when the basic requirements of section 72 are not pleaded by the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected even at the threshold as it has no completed cause of action.
Gujarat High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

S.R. Bommai And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 4 August, 1989

On the question that if reliance is placed on some other material it is incumbent on the Government to disclose it so as to enable the Court to see whether that material is relevant or irrelevant and that Art. 74(2) does not protect disclosure of the material on the basis of which the advice was tendered, the learned counsel relied upon N. P. Mathur v. State of Bihar, (FB); S. P. Gupta v. President of India, ; Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, ; Hochtief Gamon v. State of Orissa, ; Sowdambigai Motor Service v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1980) 1 Mad LJ 82, paras 21, 22, 24; Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture etc., (1968) 1 All ER 694 at pp. 714-719; R. v. Secretary of State, (1987) 2 All ER 518 at pp. 525-526; and Muhammad Sharief v. Federation of Pakistan, 1988 Pak LD 725 para 13.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 7 - N Venkatachala - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next