Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 271 (4.75 seconds)
Documents citing Additional District Magistrate, ... vs Shivakant Shukla on 28 April, 1976

K.M. Vijayan And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 21 April, 1993

52. But, in the said case, the question only related to "pension" received by the petitioner and the whole decision therein relates only to profession tax levied on the pension of the petitioner, though there is also the abovesaid reference to the said tax on "income from investments" as being a tax on income. But, with due respect, we feel that this reference without any discussion in that regard should be viewed only in the light of the other observations of the Supreme Court itself referred to in paragraph 16 supra (see page 107), regarding the rules of construction of the observations of the high judicial authorities like the Supreme Court (vide Addl. District Magistrate v. Shivakant Shukla. ).
Madras High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tikam Chand Khatri vs Kamaleswar Bora And Ors. on 2 June, 1976

On behalf of the Respondents a preliminary objection was raised that these habeas corpus petitions are not maintainable in view of the Presidential order dated June 27, 1975, A similar question arose in some other cases before the Supreme Court, The judgment has been delivered by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 1975 Reported in 1976 Cri LJ 945 (SC) (Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakanta Shukla) and other cases on 28-4-1976 and it has been held therein that in view of the Presidential Order dated June 27, 1975, no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direct it to challenge the legality of an order of detention on the grounds that the order is not under or in compliance with the Act or is illegal or is vitiated by mala fides, factual or legal or is based on extraneous considerations.
Gauhati High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs A Raja & Ors on 23 November, 2020

68. This Court is in total agreement with the law laid down in the authorities cited by the learned counsels. However, the documents sought by them can only be placed on record, provided it is the mandate of law to do so and such mandate is also reflected by Section 378 Cr.P.C. Perusal of Section 378 Cr.P.C. however, reveals that it is totally silent about the fact that all proceedings which have culminated into a decision to file an appeal by the Government should be supplied to the learned counsels for the respondents. Moreover, the procedural part which has resulted in formation of opinion by the Government are internal proceedings of Government. The learned Public Prosecutor's duty is only to file an appeal if so directed by the Government. Whether the decision taken by the Government to file an appeal was correct or not will be decided by this Court while deciding the leave petition after hearing the learned counsels for the parties and going through the evidence and not on the basis of notes, drafts or opinion appearing in Government files.
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mohmad Ayub @ Babbu Sagirbhai Shaikh vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors. on 28 July, 1993

We are also obliged to remember, once again, the guidance given by the Apex Court in Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukia AIR 1976 SC 1207, that when we consider the observations of that Court, the greatest possible care should be taken to relate the observations to the precise issues and confine such observations even though expressed in broad terms, in the general compass of the question before the Court, unless it was made clear that intention was to have a wider ambit.
Gujarat High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hukum Chand vs State Of U.P. Through The Secretary, ... on 19 July, 2012

"During emergency, the fundamental rights were read even more restrictively as interpreted by majority in Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur Vs. Shivakant Shukla 1976 CriLJ 945. The decision in Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur about the restrictive reading of right to life and liberty stood impliedly overruled by various subsequent decisions."
Allahabad High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

British Electrical & Pumps P. Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, 'B' Ward And Ors. on 22 December, 1976

38. Before disposing of the above point raised by the appellant-company it may be stated that the other case, Addl, District Magistrate v. Shivahant Shukla, , cited before us bad no bearing on the subject. The case , relates to a different matter where it was held that disclosure to court without disclosure to the person affected would introduce an element of arbitrariness and thus precluded both parties from representing their respective cases.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next