Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 87 (2.55 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Tamil Nadu vs Arooran Sugars Ltd on 31 October, 1996

B. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman, ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 1 May, 2007

88. The decisions in Virender Singh Hooda and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (47 supra), State of Tamil Nadu v. Arooran Sugars Ltd. (1997) 1 SCC 3276, Indian Aluminium Co. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. , In the matter of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal 1993 Supp.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 125 - Cited by 2 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

The Honourable Thiru Justice vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 2 December, 2020

In State of Tamil Nadu v. Arooran Sugars Ltd., the Constitution Bench made an exhaustive review of all the available decisions on the point and summed up the law by holding: “It is open to the legislature to remove the defect pointed out by the court or to amend the definition or any other provision of the Act in question retrospectively. In this process it cannot be said that there has been an encroachment by the 83/109 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.24461 of 2020 legislature over the power of the judiciary. A court's directive must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that under altered circumstances such decisions could not have been given. This will include removal of the defect in a statute pointed out in the judgment in question, as well as alteration or substitution of provisions of the enactment on which such judgment is based, with retrospective effect.”
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Exide Industries Ltd. on 24 April, 2020

(vi) the consistent thread that runs through all the decisions of this Court is that the legislature cannot directly overrule the decision or make a direction as not binding on it but has power to make the decision ineffective by removing the base on which the decision was rendered, consistent with the law of the Constitution and the legislature must have competence to do the same.” The Court then relied upon State of T.N. vs. Arooran Sugars Ltd.19 to reaffirm the point and noted thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 83 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Venkateswara Glass House vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 30 April, 2015

3.Mr.Manohar Sundaram, learned Government Advocate fairly concedes that the impugned provisional assessment order dated 14.5.2003 is bad in law in view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. WNADER LIMITED reported in 1990 79 STC 421 Madras, following an earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in MAHENDRA KUMAR ISHWARLAL & CO v. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER reported in 1971 (28) STC 551 Madras.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next