Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 529 (6.58 seconds)
Documents citing Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 1980

East Asiatic Co. (India) Private ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 August, 1984

Ltd. v. Union of India which was available at the time of the said judgment but which has not been referred to and considered therein. As already stated, even if the assessee had not entered into a contract to supply goods to the local buyer, in view of the import entitlement which it is having the assessee would have imported the goods and then found out the buyer for the sale of those goods. The fact that the assessee had earlier entered into an agreement to supply the goods before actually importing the same will not change the character of the sale between the foreign seller and the assessee being a sale in the course of the import.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990

In this regard it is equally of necessity to remind ourselves as held by this Court in Minerva Mills' case that when the effect of Art. 31 was asked to be read down so as to save it from unconstitu- tionality this Court held that it is not permissible to read down the statutory provisions when the avowed purpose is to confer power on an authority without any limitation whatever and that at p. 259D and G it was held that the principle of reading down cannot be used to distort when words of width are used even advertantly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 205 - Cited by 906 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Agricultural Income-Tax Officer And ... vs Puthumoole Krishna Bhat on 4 August, 1981

22. It does not appear that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Instalment Supply (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1961] 12 STC 489; AIR 1962 SC 53, New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR (SC) 137 and M.M. Ipoh v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 106 were brought to the notice of the court. As already stated, we are of the view that there are no limitations on the rule of exclusion of the doctrine of yes judicata in tax cases.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2015

20.3 On the other hand, Shri Nariman opposed the above submissions and referred to decisions of this Court particularly Kesavananda Bharti case, Indira Gandhi case and Minerva Mills case, where the Constitution amendments were struck down. He also referred to expert studies including reports of the 14th and 121st Law Commissions and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution 1003 (NCRWC), headed by Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah (retired CJI), wherein it was observed that independence of judiciary was basic feature of the Constitution and composition of a National Commission was required to be consistent with the concept of independence of judiciary. Method of appointment of judges could not be altered in such a way as may impinge upon the independence of judiciary. Composition of a Judicial Commission has to uphold the primacy of judiciary. 812 20.4 Shri Nariman also submitted that the impugned amendment was introduced in response to decisions of this Court affecting certain legislators. He submitted that independent functioning of the judiciary often comes in conflict with the Executive and the Legislature but mandate of the Constitution of upholding the independence of judiciary was necessary to inspire faith of citizens in impartial justice and to uphold the constitutional values like the Rule of law and the Democracy, by upholding protection of fundamental rights even against the State. He particularly made reference to the history of proposed Forty-Fifth Amendment vide Bill 88 of 1978 to provide in Article 368 that an Amendment compromising the independence of judiciary could be made by approval by majority at a referendum. The same was brought about by the Janta Government led by leaders who were arrested during 812 (Paras 9.6 and 9.7 of the Report dated 26.9.2001 as included in Vol. II of the Report of the NCRWC, 2002) 1004 emergency. It was not approved for want of majority in Rajya Sabha.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 432 - Cited by 0 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2015

[688] In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 this Court observed in paragraph 138 of the Report: “The relevance of Indira Gandhi case, Minerva Mills case and Waman Rao case [(1981) 2 SCC 362] lies in the fact that every improper enhancement of its own power by Parliament, be it clause (4) of Article 329-A or clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 or Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment has been held to be incompatible with the doctrine of basic structure as they introduced new elements which altered the identity of the Constitution or deleted the existing elements from the Constitution by which the very core of the Constitution is discarded. They obliterated important elements like judicial review. They made directive principles en bloc a touchstone for obliteration of all the fundamental rights and provided for insertion of laws in the Ninth Schedule which had no nexus with agrarian reforms.” [689] Carly Van Orman, Introduction to the Symposium: The Judicial Process Appointments Process, 10 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1 (2001), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol10/iss1/2 [690] ‘The Appointment and Removal of Judges’ by Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE, formerly Chief Justice of Australia http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/education-monographs- 1/monograph1/fbmason.htm [691] Paragraph 531 [692] ‘The Appointment and Removal of Judges’ by Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE, formerly Chief Justice of Australia http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/education-monographs- 1/monograph1/fbmason.htm [693] Shimon Shetreet, Judges on Trial (North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, (1976), p 46.
Supreme Court of India Cites 444 - Cited by 284 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Parkash Singh Badal And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 1 May, 1987

157. If the expression: "any direction" is to be literally construed then it would make the people's representative a wholly political party's representative, which decidedly he is not. The Member would virtually lose his identity and would become a rubber stamp in the hands of his political party. Such interpretation of this provision would cost it, its constitutionality, for in that sense it would become destructive of democracy/parliamentary democracy, which is the basic feature of the Constitution. Where giving of narrow meaning and reading down of the provision can save it from the vice of unconstitutionality the Court should read it down particularly when it brings the provision in line with the avowed legislative intent. Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789, at P. 1838, in order to save Article 352, Clause (5)(a) of the Constitution from being declared unconstitutional, read down the provision. In this regard, the following observations are instructive:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Somasundaram Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd,. ... vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu ... on 30 January, 1999

In Minerva Mitts Ltd., v. Union of India, , the Supreme Court held that the Sick Textile Under taking (Nationalisation) Act (57 of 1974) gives effect to the policy as contemplated in Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution and that the Act enjoys the protective umbrella of Article 31(c). Same reasons can be applied in the present case as the provisions of the impugned Act is in pari materia with the Act 57 of 74 and the object and purpose of the Acts are one and the same. Accordingly, I reject the third contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 36 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Indian Trawlers Association, ... vs The State Of Kerala And Ors. on 13 February, 1992

In fact, no such argument appears to have been advanced in the Minerva Mills case, AIR 1980 SC 1789 and we find no discussion and no reference whatsoever, separately to any of the distinct principles enunciated in the individual Articles of Part IV of the Constitution in decision in Minerva Mills. The argument advanced and the conclusion arrived at both appears to be general, applicable to every clause of Article 39, and every Article of Part IV of the Constitution, no less to Clauses (b) and (c) than to other clauses.
Kerala High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cesc Ltd. And Another vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 4 April, 1996

In the aforesaid circumstances, the question whether the theory of alternative institutional mechanism/ arrangement, as propounded by Bhagwati, J. in the minority judgment in Minerva Mill's Case, which subsequently found favour in the majority judgments in Sampath Kumar Case and some other subsequent cases, referred to above, is contrary to the ratio decidendi of the earlier decisions of the larger Benches of the Supreme Court in Keshavananda Bharati's Case , Privileges' Case, and Indira Gandhi's Case, yet to be answered, is indeed very much arguable in view of the foregoing discussions.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next