Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1147 (5.30 seconds)
Documents citing Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law And ... on 6 September, 2018

Sqn.Ldr. (Retd). Navtej Singh vs Union Of India . on 5 December, 2018

22. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we therefore direct the respondents to include the names of the wife and daughter of the appellant in the Service Certificate at least from the date of his release or retirement and direct the respondents to extend to the wife and the daughter of the Civil Appeal D.No.41636 of 2015 Sqn. Ldr. (Retd.) Navtej Singh vs. Union of India and ors. 15 appellant all such benefits which a spouse and children of a retired officer would be entitled.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Sukanya Shantha vs Union Of India on 3 October, 2024

We are, therefore, of the view that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness as pointed out by us above would apply to negate legislation as well under Article 14.” 31 A formalistic understanding of the classification test was then critiqued by this Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. 48 The Court was dealing with a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Act, 1860, to the extent that it criminalized consensual sexual conduct between adults. In his concurring opinion, one of us (Justice DY Chandrachud) held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 174 - Cited by 0 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Kiyana Ventures Llp vs The State Of Maharashtra And 5 Others on 24 April, 2019

189. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Shayra Banu Vs. Union of India (supra) and Navtej Johar Vs. Union of India (supra), in which it was held that a statutory provision can be struck down on the ground that the same was manifestly arbitrary and ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 01:05:40 ::: SKN/PMW 268/310 2592.13-wp--final.doc unreasonable. As noted earlier, considering the finding which we have recorded on the validity of Capital Value Rules of the year 2010 and 2015, the argument that in some cases there will be exorbitant rise in the taxes payable will have no basis. There is an argument canvassed that there is a disparity of tax payable in respect of residential and hotel properties. An argument is canvassed that there is disparity between five start hotel properties and other hotel properties. On first principle, the submissions cannot be accepted. The user of residential properties, 5-Star hotel properties and other hotel properties is different. These properties form part of distinct classes and by its vary nature cannot be treated as equal. Therefore, it is very difficult to sustain an argument that there is manifest arbitrariness in the impugned provisions. As the provisions do not lead to confiscatory nature of taxes, violation of Article 14 is not attracted.
Bombay High Court Cites 304 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Yashoda Co-Operative Housing Society ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Gr. Mumbai And ... on 24 April, 2019

189. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Shayra Banu Vs. Union of India (supra) and Navtej Johar Vs. Union of India (supra), in which it was held that a statutory provision can be struck down on the ground that the same was manifestly arbitrary and ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 01:05:10 ::: SKN/PMW 268/310 2592.13-wp--final.doc unreasonable. As noted earlier, considering the finding which we have recorded on the validity of Capital Value Rules of the year 2010 and 2015, the argument that in some cases there will be exorbitant rise in the taxes payable will have no basis. There is an argument canvassed that there is a disparity of tax payable in respect of residential and hotel properties. An argument is canvassed that there is disparity between five start hotel properties and other hotel properties. On first principle, the submissions cannot be accepted. The user of residential properties, 5-Star hotel properties and other hotel properties is different. These properties form part of distinct classes and by its vary nature cannot be treated as equal. Therefore, it is very difficult to sustain an argument that there is manifest arbitrariness in the impugned provisions. As the provisions do not lead to confiscatory nature of taxes, violation of Article 14 is not attracted.
Bombay High Court Cites 304 - Cited by 1 - A Oka - Full Document

Dr. Kirti Bhushan Mishra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 19 July, 2024

13. To fathom the depth of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is imperative to go-through the definition of 'rape', in that, for committing rape, as per Section 375(a), an offender is a 'man' who uses the part of the body - (a) Penis, as per Section 375(b) body-parts other than penis and 375(c) any other object. Simultaneously, the said definition describes - at the receiving end the body parts are (a) Vagina, (b) Urethra, (c) Anus, (d) Mouth and (e) other body parts. Considering the offence of Section 377 i.e. unnatural, although it is not well- equipped and offender is not defined therein but body parts are well defined, which are also included in Section 375 i.e. carnal intercourse against the order of nature. At this juncture, it is indispensable to see what is unnatural. The Supreme Court in a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC criminalizes 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature' which among other things has been interpreted to include oral and anal sex. Obviously, I find that Section 377 of IPC is not well-equipped. Unnatural offence has also not been defined anywhere. The five- judge bench of the Supreme Court in re Navtej Singh Johar (supra) testing the constitutionality of said provision although held that some parts of Section 377 are unconstitutional and finally held if unnatural offence is done with consent then offence of Section 377 IPC is not made out. The view of the Supreme Court if considered in the light of amended definition of Section 375 and the relationship for which exception provided for not taking consent i.e. between husband & wife and not making offence of Section 376, the definition of rape as provided under Section 375 includes penetration of penis in the parts of the body i.e. vagina, urethra or anus of a woman, even though, the consent is not required then as to how between husband and wife any unnatural offence is made out.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - R Maithani - Full Document

Naageshwar Vitthal Neela vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 24 April, 2019

189. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Shayra Banu Vs. Union of India (supra) and Navtej Johar Vs. Union of India (supra), in which it was held that a statutory provision can be struck down on the ground that the same was manifestly arbitrary and ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 01:04:54 ::: SKN/PMW 268/310 2592.13-wp--final.doc unreasonable. As noted earlier, considering the finding which we have recorded on the validity of Capital Value Rules of the year 2010 and 2015, the argument that in some cases there will be exorbitant rise in the taxes payable will have no basis. There is an argument canvassed that there is a disparity of tax payable in respect of residential and hotel properties. An argument is canvassed that there is disparity between five start hotel properties and other hotel properties. On first principle, the submissions cannot be accepted. The user of residential properties, 5-Star hotel properties and other hotel properties is different. These properties form part of distinct classes and by its vary nature cannot be treated as equal. Therefore, it is very difficult to sustain an argument that there is manifest arbitrariness in the impugned provisions. As the provisions do not lead to confiscatory nature of taxes, violation of Article 14 is not attracted.
Bombay High Court Cites 304 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Crescent Realtors Private Limited And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And 5 Ors on 24 April, 2019

189. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Shayra Banu Vs. Union of India (supra) and Navtej Johar Vs. Union of India (supra), in which it was held that a statutory provision can be struck down on the ground that the same was manifestly arbitrary and ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2019 01:06:10 ::: SKN/PMW 268/310 2592.13-wp--final.doc unreasonable. As noted earlier, considering the finding which we have recorded on the validity of Capital Value Rules of the year 2010 and 2015, the argument that in some cases there will be exorbitant rise in the taxes payable will have no basis. There is an argument canvassed that there is a disparity of tax payable in respect of residential and hotel properties. An argument is canvassed that there is disparity between five start hotel properties and other hotel properties. On first principle, the submissions cannot be accepted. The user of residential properties, 5-Star hotel properties and other hotel properties is different. These properties form part of distinct classes and by its vary nature cannot be treated as equal. Therefore, it is very difficult to sustain an argument that there is manifest arbitrariness in the impugned provisions. As the provisions do not lead to confiscatory nature of taxes, violation of Article 14 is not attracted.
Bombay High Court Cites 304 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next