Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 172 (8.61 seconds)
Documents citing Prem Chand Garg vs Excise Commissioner, U. P., Allahabad on 6 November, 1962

Assistant Commissioner (Ct) Ltu ... vs M/S Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health ... on 6 May, 2020

15. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear as crystal that the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409, has ruled that there is no conflict of opinion in Antulay case [A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602] or in Union Carbide Corpn. case [Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584] with the principle set down in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., AIR 1963 SC 996.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 100 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Reserved On: 16.09.2025 vs Employees Provident Fund Organization on 22 September, 2025

State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406, go to show that they do not strictly speaking come into any conflict with the observations of the majority made in Prem Chand Garg case [Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., AIR 1963 SC 996]. It is one thing to say that "prohibitions or limitations in a statute" cannot come in the way of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 to do complete justice between the parties in the pending "cause or matter" arising out of that statute, but quite a different thing to say that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 142, this Court can altogether ignore the substantive provisions of a statute, dealing with the subject and pass orders concerning an issue which can be settled only through a mechanism prescribed in another statute.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - A M Goel - Full Document

Anupam Industries Ltd vs The State Level Industry Facilitation ... on 16 December, 2022

15. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear as crystal that the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409, has ruled that there is no conflict of opinion in Antulay case [A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602] or in Union Carbide Corpn. case [Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584] with the principle set down in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., AIR 1963 SC 996.
Gujarat High Court Cites 143 - Cited by 1 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 11 August, 2025

As a matter of fact, the observations on which emphasis has been placed by us from the Union Carbide case [Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584] , A.R. Antulay case [A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 372] and Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat[Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406] , go to show that they do not strictly speaking come into any conflict with the observations of the majority made in Prem Chand Garg case [Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr., AIR 1963 SC 996] . It is one thing to say that "prohibitions or limitations in a statute" cannot come in the way of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 to do complete justice between the parties in the pending "cause or matter" arising out of that statute, but quite a different thing to say that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 142, this Court can altogether ignore the substantive provisions of a statute, dealing with the subject and pass orders concerning an issue which can be settled only through a mechanism prescribed in another statute.
Allahabad High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next