Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19888 (4.56 seconds)
Documents citing Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra ... vs The State Election Commissioner on 12 January, 2007

208. Learned counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, have emphasised that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ponnuswami's case and Mohinder Singh Gill's case clearly lay down that there should not be any interference during election process and there should not be any interference after election process except in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in the relevant statute.
Madras High Court Cites 150 - Cited by 35 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document

Uber India Systems Private Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2024

102. It will be seen that there is no broad proposition that the case of Mohinder Singh Gill [Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., (1978) 1 SCC 405] will not apply where larger public interest is involved. It is only subsequent materials i.e. materials in the form of facts that have taken place after the order in question is passed, that can be looked at in the larger public interest, in order to support an administrative order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

M/S Krishi Infratech vs The Union Of India Represented By The ... on 16 May, 2023

102. It will be seen that there is no broad proposition that the case of Mohinder Singh Gill [Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., (1978) 1 SCC 405] will not apply where larger public interest is involved. It is only subsequent materials i.e. materials in the form of facts that have taken place after the order in question is passed, that can be looked at in the larger public interest, in order to support an administrative order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Ani Technologies Private Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2024

102. It will be seen that there is no broad proposition that the case of Mohinder Singh Gill [Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., (1978) 1 SCC 405] will not apply where larger public interest is involved. It is only subsequent materials i.e. materials in the form of facts that have taken place after the order in question is passed, that can be looked at in the larger public interest, in order to support an administrative order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

The Collector vs K. Krishnaveni on 3 September, 2019

22. Though the aforesaid principles of natural justice are known to have their origin in Common Law, even in India the principle is prevalent from ancient times, which was even invoked in Kautilya's Arthasastra. This Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. [(1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851] explained the Indian origin of these principles in the following words: (SCC pp. 432-33, para 43) “43. Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes, it applies when people are affected by acts of authority. It is the hone [Ed.: The word “hone” is usually used as a verb, meaning “to sharpen”. Rarely, it is also used a noun, as here, meaning “whetstone”.] of healthy government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of Judge-made law. Indeed from the legendary days of Adam—and of Kautilya's Arthasastra—the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system.”
Madras High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 6 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Pandey,Gonda vs Dcit/Acit (Central)-2, Lucknow on 11 December, 2025

Thus, in view of these judicial precedents and the fact that the said affidavit did not seek to modify the order in any way but was only an assertions by the then Range Head that he had closely involved himself with the assessment proceedings and given the approval after due application of mind, we reject the objections to the assessee against the admission of the said affidavit holding that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. We also note that while presenting the said affidavit to the Bench, the ld. DRs had suggested that the concerned officer was available for cross examination in respect of the same but no request was made on behalf of the assessee for this. Neither was any counter affidavit filed by the assessee in opposition to the said affidavit. The officer swearing the affidavit is a responsible former Government Servant who is still bound under the CCS Pension Rules to conduct himself in a manner befitting of a Government Servant and therefore, the sworn testimony of such a person against whom the allegations have been levelled cannot be disregarded as having been made for any reasons other than to clarify the actual position. We further observe that the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in Vrushali Sanjay Shinde (ITA No. 198/MUM/2022) has no application to the facts of this case because in that case the affidavit was sworn by an officer who had no association with the approval process. We also note that none of the 235 averments that have been made in the said affidavit have been disputed by the assessee with any counter affidavit or evidence. The assessee has not been able to demonstrate that the JCIT did not visit Allahabad regularly for monitoring these cases or that no e-mails were exchanged between the then AO and Range head during the assessment process. He has also not been able to point to any instances of failure to apply mind to any submission, fact or legal issue. Thus nothing has been placed before us that would lead us to reject the affidavit and hold that the JCIT had granted the approval 'mechanically' without application of mind to the materials or record.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 183 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Pandey,Gonda vs Dcit/Acit, (Central)-2, Lucknow on 11 December, 2025

Thus, in view of these judicial precedents and the fact that the said affidavit did not seek to modify the order in any way but was only an assertions by the then Range Head that he had closely involved himself with the assessment proceedings and given the approval after due application of mind, we reject the objections to the assessee against the admission of the said affidavit holding that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. We also note that while presenting the said affidavit to the Bench, the ld. DRs had suggested that the concerned officer was available for cross examination in respect of the same but no request was made on behalf of the assessee for this. Neither was any counter affidavit filed by the assessee in opposition to the said affidavit. The officer swearing the affidavit is a responsible former Government Servant who is still bound under the CCS Pension Rules to conduct himself in a manner befitting of a Government Servant and therefore, the sworn testimony of such a person against whom the allegations have been levelled cannot be disregarded as having been made for any reasons other than to clarify the actual position. We further observe that the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in Vrushali Sanjay Shinde (ITA No. 198/MUM/2022) has no application to the facts of this case because in that case the affidavit was sworn by an officer who had no association with the approval process. We also note that none of the 235 averments that have been made in the said affidavit have been disputed by the assessee with any counter affidavit or evidence. The assessee has not been able to demonstrate that the JCIT did not visit Allahabad regularly for monitoring these cases or that no e-mails were exchanged between the then AO and Range head during the assessment process. He has also not been able to point to any instances of failure to apply mind to any submission, fact or legal issue. Thus nothing has been placed before us that would lead us to reject the affidavit and hold that the JCIT had granted the approval 'mechanically' without application of mind to the materials or record.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 183 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Pandey,Gonda vs Dcit/Acit (Central)-2, Lucknow on 11 December, 2025

Thus, in view of these judicial precedents and the fact that the said affidavit did not seek to modify the order in any way but was only an assertions by the then Range Head that he had closely involved himself with the assessment proceedings and given the approval after due application of mind, we reject the objections to the assessee against the admission of the said affidavit holding that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. We also note that while presenting the said affidavit to the Bench, the ld. DRs had suggested that the concerned officer was available for cross examination in respect of the same but no request was made on behalf of the assessee for this. Neither was any counter affidavit filed by the assessee in opposition to the said affidavit. The officer swearing the affidavit is a responsible former Government Servant who is still bound under the CCS Pension Rules to conduct himself in a manner befitting of a Government Servant and therefore, the sworn testimony of such a person against whom the allegations have been levelled cannot be disregarded as having been made for any reasons other than to clarify the actual position. We further observe that the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in Vrushali Sanjay Shinde (ITA No. 198/MUM/2022) has no application to the facts of this case because in that case the affidavit was sworn by an officer who had no association with the approval process. We also note that none of the 235 averments that have been made in the said affidavit have been disputed by the assessee with any counter affidavit or evidence. The assessee has not been able to demonstrate that the JCIT did not visit Allahabad regularly for monitoring these cases or that no e-mails were exchanged between the then AO and Range head during the assessment process. He has also not been able to point to any instances of failure to apply mind to any submission, fact or legal issue. Thus nothing has been placed before us that would lead us to reject the affidavit and hold that the JCIT had granted the approval 'mechanically' without application of mind to the materials or record.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 183 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jyoti Mediservices Private ... vs Dcit, Central Circle, Allahabad, ... on 21 November, 2025

Thus, in view of these judicial precedents and the fact that the said affidavit did not seek to modify the order in any way but was only an assertions by the then Range Head that he had closely involved himself with the assessment proceedings and given the approval after due application of mind, we reject the objections to the assessee against the admission of the said affidavit holding that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. We also note that while presenting the said affidavit to the Bench, the ld. DRs had suggested that the concerned officer was available for cross examination in respect of the same but no request was made on behalf of the assessee for this. Neither was any counter affidavit filed by the assessee in opposition to the said affidavit. The officer swearing the affidavit is a responsible former Government Servant who is still bound under the CCS Pension Rules to conduct himself in a manner befitting of a Government Servant and therefore, the sworn testimony of such a person against whom the allegations have been levelled cannot be disregarded as having been made for any reasons other than to clarify the actual position. We further observe that the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in Vrushali Sanjay Shinde (ITA No. I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 158 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 198/MUM/2022) has no application to the facts of this case because in that case the affidavit was sworn by an officer who had no association with the approval process. We also note that none of the averments that have been made in the said affidavit have been disputed by the assessee with any counter affidavit or evidence. The assessee has not been able to demonstrate that the JCIT did not visit Allahabad regularly for monitoring these cases or that no e-mails were exchanged between the then AO and Range head during the assessment process. He has also not been able to point to any instances of failure to apply mind to any submission, fact or legal issue. Thus nothing has been placed before us that would lead us to reject the affidavit and hold that the JCIT had granted the approval 'mechanically' without application of mind to the materials or record.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 118 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next