Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (4.15 seconds)
Documents citing Balbir Singh Delhi Admn. Delhi vs D.N. Kadian, M.M. Delhi & Anr. D.N. ... on 10 December, 1985

Paresh Chandra Koji vs The State on 27 November, 1997

4. Mr. Sekh Kasem Ali Ahmed, the ld counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, contended that as the materials on record now stand, there is no necessity for any sanction for the prosecution of the present petitioners for an offence under Section 409 Indian Penal Code and as such, no exception could be taken to the impugned order of the ld. Judge whereby he was pleased to take cognizance on the basis of the charge sheet and the materials under Section 173(5), Cr.P.C. It has been also submitted by Mr. Ahmed that the facts establishing the necessity of sanction might come to light during the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial and in such eventuality, the want of previous prosecution might prove fatal to the instant prosecution, but for the present as the materials on record stand, it cannot be said that a case for sanction within the meaning of Section 197, Cr.P.C. has been made out as such, there is no scope for any interference by this Court at this stage. Reliance has been placed in support of the above contentions in , Om Prakash Gupta v. State of U.P., , Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan (on which reliance has also been placed on behalf of the petitioners); , S.B. Saha v. M.S. Kochar; , Balbir Singh v. D. N. Kadian; 1988 Cri LJ 1027 (Orissa), Dhulamani Behera v. State of Orissa and , Bakhshish Singh v. Gurmej Kaur.
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

W/H.C Sudesh vs Sh. Nahar Singh on 5 June, 2010

16. The Ld. Counsel for revisionists has relied upon various judgments namely (2006) 1 SCC 557 Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1986) 1 SCC 410 Balbir Singh v. D.N. Kadian M.M.Delhi & Anr., on the point that, where there is reasonable nexus between the acts complained of and discharge of official duties of those public servants, then the bar/protection U/s 197 would be available to those public servants.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hallmark Automation (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 29 September, 1995

4. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that as per provisions of s. 23 of the IT Act, 1961, the income from house property is to be assessed either as per the standard market rent or as per the actual rent received or receivable, whichever is higher. In this case, according to the learned counsel, the cost of land being Rs. 3,88,000 and cost of construction at Rs. 9,30,128 the standard rent at the rate of 8.625% under s. 6 of the Rent Control Act works out to Rs. 1,13,689. As against the standard rent, assessee has shown more rent received from the tenants. The AO according to the learned counsel was not justified in assessing the higher rental value in contravention of the well settled law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 435 (SC); Diwan Daulat Rai Kapoor vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1980) 122 ITR 700 (SC); Dr. Balbir Singh vs. M. C. D. & Ors. (1985) 152 ITR 388 (SC) and Amolak Ram Khosla vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 589 (SC).
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next