Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 121 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Shri A. C. Aggarwal Sub-Divisional ... vs Mst. Ram Kali, Etc on 16 August, 1967

Dilip Singh Yadav, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur, ... on 10 May, 2023

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi & Anr, v. Smt. Ram Kali etc.,(4) Bashira v. State of U.P.,(5) and Prakash Chand Agarwal & Ors. v. M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd.(6) In the statutory provision under consideration now before us the power to stay a proceeding is not annexed with the obligation to necessarily stay on proof of certain conditions although there are conditions prescribed for the making of the application for stay and the period during which the power to stay can be exercised. The question whether it should, on the facts of a particular case, be exercised or not 'will have to be examined and then decided by the Court to which the application is made. If the applicant can make out, on facts, that the objects of the power conferred by ss. 442 and 446 of the Act, can only be carried out by a stay order, it could perhaps be urged that an obligation to do so has become annexed to it by proof of those facts. That would be the position not because the word "may" itself must be equated with "shall" but because judicial power has necessarily to be exercised justly, properly, and reasonably to enforce the principle that fights created must be enforced.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sanjit Kumar Choudhury vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 11 August, 2025

"12. This Court in Sub-Divisional Magistrate v. Ram Kali [AIR 1968 SC 1] held that Section 18(1) deals with one class and Section 18(2) relates to another class. Section 18(1) is a summary procedure for closing down obnoxious places of prostitution, without going through the detailed process of a criminal prosecution. It is a quick-acting defensive mechanism, calculated to extinguish the brothel and promote immediate moral sanitation, having regard to the social susceptibility of places like shrines, schools, hostels, hospitals and the like. Section 18(2) on the other hand, operates only where persons have been convicted of offences under Section 3 or Section 7. Thus the place is found to be put to prostitutional use in a criminal trial. It stands to reason that if the purpose of extirpating the commercial vice from that venue W.P.(Crl.) No. 34 of 2025 Page 14 of 16 were to be successful, the occupier must be expelled therefrom. This is precisely what has been done in the present case. Section 18(2) operates not merely on places within the offending distance of 200 yards but in all places where the activity of prostitution has been conducted."
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M S Raman - Full Document

Sanjay Prasad @ Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal ... on 22 January, 2021

In course of argument, Mr. Ansul has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri A.C. Aggrawal & Ors. Vs. Mst. Ramkali reported in AIR 1968 Page 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Ramkali-2). He has submitted that because the impugned order has been passed by respondent no.3 before conclusion of trial of the main case, the respondent no.3 has committed a jurisdictional error.
Patna High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R R Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next