Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.20 seconds)
Documents citing Ajay Iron And Steel Works, Varanasi And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 18 November, 1998

Tranztar Commercial Vehicle ... vs Ito Ward 14 (3)(2), Mumbai on 24 April, 2023

The revenue relied upon Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. 1970 SCR (1) 639 and M.R. Pratap v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, (1969) 2 SCC 412 which was followed in Kolhapur Cane sugar Works Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 536 and argued that an "omission" would not amount to "repeal" and that since the present case was concerned with the omission of Section 280ZA, section 24 of general clauses act would have no application as it only applied to `repeals' and not 'omissions', and also that it saved rights that were given by subordinate legislation, and as the notification dated 22.9.1967 did not by itself confer any right on the appellant, section 24 of the General Clauses Act would not be attracted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Shobha Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Another on 6 April, 1999

7. Sri Parekh, learned standing counsel for the Union appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other contended as follows--As per Rule 443, the Telecom authorities are entitled to disconnect the telephone of the petitioner and they have not committed any wrong in passing their order and communication. He relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s. Ajay Iron and Steel Works and another v. Union of India and others, 1999 ALR 91. He also submitted that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - O Bhatt - Full Document

Praveen Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 2 April, 1999

In the case of Y. Pridhvi Kumar v. General Manager, Telecom District, Hyderabad, AIR 1993 AP 131 ; and in the case of M/s. Ajay Iron and Steel Works and another v. Union of India and others, 1999 (35) AIR 91, the matter was regarding default in payment of bill by the subscribers. The dispute in those cases did not relate to breach of any contract in between the licencee, to run the S.T.D.-P.C.O. on the one hand, and the telegraph department on the other. The controversy in the case in hand is, therefore, quite different from the controversy decided in those cases. It is not necessary for us to deliberate, while deciding the present controversy, over the non-statutory contracts relating to the breach of contract in between the subscriber and the telegraph department or the breach of Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules or other rules, or to give an opinion in a case in between the ordinary subscriber and the department.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1