Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 53 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Tara Prasad Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others on 7 May, 1980

Unknown vs Union Of India on 1 March, 2013

9.On a consideration of the matter and the decision rendered in the aforementioned O.A., I am of the considered view that the controversy in the present O.A. is squarely covered by a decision rendered in the case of Tara Singh & Another Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 18.03.2011 and feel that the ends of justice will be met if the same benefit is extended to the applicant in the present O.A. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Tara Singh & Another (Supra).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pushpa vs The Home Secretary on 16 December, 2025

9. A plain and conjoint reading of Rule 21(h) (3) of TNSOS Rules clearly discloses that prisoners convicted for offences involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act are disqualified from being granted ordinary leave. The impugned proceedings, therefore, are strictly in consonance with the said statutory provision. Though the petitioner has assailed the impugned proceedings by placing reliance on certain earlier decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tara Singh Vs. Union of India and others (supra) was not taken into consideration in those cases.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

Bowsul Huthya vs The Home Secretary on 16 December, 2025

9. A plain and conjoint reading of Rule 21(h) (3) of TNSOS Rules clearly discloses that prisoners convicted for offences involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act are disqualified from being granted ordinary leave. The impugned proceedings, therefore, are strictly in consonance with the said statutory provision. Though the petitioner has assailed the impugned proceedings by placing reliance on certain earlier 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 06:16:08 pm ) W.P.Crl.No.728 of 2025 decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tara Singh Vs. Union of India and others (supra) was not taken into consideration in those cases.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

Alamelu vs The Home Secretary on 16 December, 2025

9. A plain and conjoint reading of Rule 21(h) (3) of TNSOS Rules clearly discloses that prisoners convicted for offences involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act are disqualified from being granted ordinary leave. The impugned proceedings, therefore, are strictly in consonance with the said statutory provision. Though the petitioner has assailed the impugned proceedings by placing reliance on certain earlier decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tara Singh Vs. Union of India and others (supra) was not taken into consideration in those cases.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

Sri Pratap Singh Tiwari vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 7 September, 2022

277. Reference has also been made to judgments which refer to the purport of side notes in the interpretation of a statute in Thakurain Balraj Kunwar v. Rae Jagatpal Singhhttps://www.scconline.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx - FN0479, Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar, Chandroji Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P., Nagpur, Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan, Tara Prasad Singh v. Union of India, Sakshi v. Union of India, Guntaiah v. Hambamma and C.Gupta v. Glaxo- Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. However, we find them of no use in the present case as we have already held that the Explanation only goes on to clarify the main or original provision.
Karnataka High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sri. Shankaragowda A Patil vs The Director Of Enforcement on 27 September, 2022

in the interpretation of a statute in Thakurain Balraj Kunwar v. Rae Jagatpal Singh https://www.scconline.com/Members/SearchResult.asp x - FN0479, Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar, Chandroji Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P., Nagpur, Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan, Tara Prasad Singh v. Union of India, Sakshi v. Union of India, Guntaiah v. Hambamma and C.Gupta v. Glaxo- Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. However, we find them of no use in the present case as we have already held that the Explanation only goes on to clarify the main or original provision.
Karnataka High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Smt. Pavana Dibbur vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 27 September, 2022

277. Reference has also been made to judgments which refer to the purport of side notes in the interpretation of a statute in Thakurain Balraj Kunwar v. Rae Jagatpal Singhhttps://www.scconline.com/Members/SearchResult.asp x - FN0479, Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar, Chandroji Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P., Nagpur, Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan, Tara Prasad Singh v. Union of India, Sakshi v. Union of India, Guntaiah v. Hambamma and C.Gupta v. Glaxo-Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. However, we find them of no use in the present case as we have already held that the Explanation only goes on to clarify the main or original provision.
Karnataka High Court Cites 132 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

In Re: Ram Badan Choubey And Anr. vs Unknown on 1 September, 1982

10. Regarding the third point raised on behalf of the petitioner that as he was in lawful possession of Joyrain-danga Colliery on the material dates extraction of coal by his men does not constitute an offence under Section 379. I.P.C., I find that it should succeed as the mine in question is a composite mine and it has been held by the Supreme Court in Tara Prasad Singh's case that such mine does not fall within the scope of definition of "coal mine" in Section 2(b) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act of 1973. But the extraction of coal even from such mine comes within the penal provision of Section 30(2) of the said Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next