Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 447 (1.30 seconds)
Documents citing Shyam Kishore And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And ... on 3 September, 1992

K.M. Corporation Represented By M. ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By ... on 3 April, 2007

The Patna High Court also followed the judgments of Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi ; Elora Construction Company v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay [1980] AIR 162 Bom (Bom); Chatter Singh Baid v. Corporation of Calcutta Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat Seth Nand Lal v. State of Haryana [1980] Supp SCC 574 St. Mary's School v. Cantonement Board, Meerut .
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 27 - K R Pandian - Full Document

K.M.Corporation vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2007

The Patna High Court also followed the judgments of Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi AIR 1992 SC 2279; Elora Construction Company v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay [1980] AIR 162 Bom (Bom); Chatter Singh Baid v. Corporation of Calcutta AIR 1984 Cal 283 Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat AIR 1975 SC 1234 Seth Nand Lal v. State of Haryana [1980] Supp SCC 574 St. Marys School v. Cantonement Board, Meerut [1996] 7 SCC 484.
Madras High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - K R Pandian - Full Document

J.R. Sood And Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 25 August, 1998

But so long as the amendment is not incorporated in the statute, this Court is bound by the judgment in Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) and the efficacious relief could be sought by having recourse to an appeal under Section 169 of the Act and finality is attached with the appellate order. Ordinarily, question of correctness of assessment (apart from its constitutionality) are for the decision of the assessing and appellate authorities.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

Procter & Gamble India Limited And Anr. vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 27 September, 1993

26. The Supreme Court decision in the case of Shyam Kishore and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, reported in A.I.R. 1982, S.C. 2279, would show that the main challenge was to the validity of the section. Having held that the section was valid, the Supreme Court observed, thus, in para 42 of the Judgment at page 2294 as under :-
Bombay High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

V.C. Soundarrajan vs Collector Of Customs on 30 March, 1993

Considering the scope of Section 129E of the Customs Act, the Supreme Court in Shri Shyam Kishore and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another observed as follows : (at p. 351) ".... Right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant.."
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sgs Infratech Limited Sgc Mall vs Union Of India, Through Secretary, ... on 26 September, 2024

3. Shri Sorabjee, learned counsel for the appellants, challenges the validity of Section 87 on the ground that it places onerous conditions in the way of the right of appeal. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of this Court in Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi which deals with a similar provision of appeal, viz., Section 107(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The validity of the said provision was challenged and it was repelled with the following observations and clarifications: (SCC p. 46, para 44) "... We see nothing wrong in interpreting the provision as permitting the appellate authority to adjourn the hearing of the appeal thus giving time to the assessee to pay the tax or even specifically granting time or instalments to enable the assessee to deposit the disputed tax where the case merits it, so long as it does not unduly interfere with the appellate court's calendar of hearings. His powers, however, should stop short of staying the recovery of the tax till the disposal of the appeal. We say this because it is one thing for the judge to adjourn the hearing leaving it to the assessee to pay up the tax before the adjourned date or permitting the assessee to pay up the tax, if he can, in accordance with his directions before the appeal is heard. In doing so, he does not and cannot injunct the department from recovering the tax, if they wish to do so. He is only giving a chance to the assessee to pay up the tax if he wants the appeal to be heard. It is, however, a totally different thing for the judge to stay the recovery till the disposal of the appeal; that would result in modifying the language of the proviso to read: 'no appeal shall be disposed of until the tax is paid'.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Cantonment Board vs St. John'S School And Anr. on 17 July, 2002

In the circumstances, in order to save Clause (b) of Section 87 from the vice of invalidity and by taking the same escape route of statutory interpretation provided by Supreme Court in Shyam Kishore's case (supra), I take the liberty in extending the same reason a little further, in holding that the amount sought to be deposited is the amount alleged to be due with accruals, which was in dispute at the time of filing of the appeal, and not the amount at the time of hearing or determination of appeal. The objection of the counsel for petitioner is as such over-ruled.
Allahabad High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 3 - S Ambwani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next