Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Sitaram Hari Salunkhe vs Laxman Rambodh Dubey And Anr. on 2 August, 1979

Vikram Ispat And Ors. vs Cce on 22 July, 1999

20. The position that now prevails is that there are two decisions of the Tribunal on this issue, each taking a point of view diametrically opposite to the one that taken in the other. It is, as has been said, somewhat surprising that the existence of the earlier order was not brought to the notice of the bench which passed the latter order. Whether, if that decision had been brought to the notice, it would have taken a different view, is not a question that can be answered now with any degree of certainty. It is however reasonable to say that a different view might have emerged. It may no doubt be true, as Shri Lodha, advocate for the appellant says, that it is not necessary, where there are differing judgements on the same question, that a reference be made to a larger bench to decide which of the two views is correct. He cites the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sitaram Hari Salunke v. Lakshman Rambodh Dubey and the concurring Judgment of Sahai J in State of UP v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. . The view expressed by that learned judge was that any declaration or conclusion arrived at in a Judgment without application of mind is preceded with any reason cannot be deemed to be a declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent. Such a decision passed sub silentio.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 26 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Philip Jeyasingh vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 22 January, 1992

In Sitaram Hari Shankhe v. Laxman Rambodh Dubey and Anr. , Dharmadhikari, J. held that the judgment of Joshi, J. in an earlier case was not binding on him as the specific provisions of a statute and the Rules were not noticed. The learned Judge observed that a judgment rendered in ignorance of a statute or a rule having the force of a statute was decided per incuriam. He quoted from the rulings in Yeshabiv.
Madras High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Commr. Of C. Ex. vs Ishaan Research Laboratories P. Ltd. on 9 June, 2004

5.2 He contended that the impugned goods are not used as raw material by the Hotel but are distributed by the hotels to their customers; that thus the goods are distributed for the consumption of the individual customers; that the instrumentality of sale is hotels; that "retail sale" under the Packaged Commodities Rules does not mean that the sale should necessarily take place through retail sales agencies as it also includes distribution or delivery of commodity through other instrumentalities for consumption by an individual or a group of individuals or any other consumer. The learned Advocate also referred to the decisions in the case of Sitaram Hari Salunkha v. Laman Rambodh Dubey, AIR 1980 Bombay 55 and State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., JT 1991 (3) SC 268 to emphasis the contention that a decision decided per incuriam the specific provision of the Act and the Rule, is not binding upon the co-ordinate Bench; that "A precedent is not binding if it was rendered in ignorance of the statute or a Rule having the force of a statute. In such circumstances it can be said that the matter was decided per incuriam. He also mentioned that in Bharti Systel Ltd. the question was whether the demand raised contrary to the Circular of the Board was sustainable and the Tribunal following the settled legal principle has held that the Circulars are binding on Revenue.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sardari Lal Gupta vs Siri Krishan Aggarwal on 1 May, 1984

Similar view was taken in Sitaram Hari Salunkhe v. Laxman Rambodh Dubey, AIR 1980 Bom 55, and Thuraka Onnuramma v. Tahsildar, Kadiri, AIR 1980 Andh Pra 267. We are in respectful agreement with the abovesaid view. Therefore, we are not bound to follow the ratio in Ganpat Rai s case (AIR 1931 Lah 373). We are further of the view that in this situation it is not necessary to refer the case to a larger Bench. With great respect to the learned Judges, in our opinion, Durga Parshad's (AIR 1954 Punj 125) and Pritam Singh's (1969 Cur LJ 627) (Punj) cases were not correctly decided and consequently these stand overruled.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 12 - M M Punchhi - Full Document
1