Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 679 (4.63 seconds)
Documents citing K.S. Rashid And Son vs The Income-Tax Investigation ... on 22 January, 1954

Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh vs The Union Of India & Another on 5 December, 1960

The next case relied upon by the learned Solicitor General is a converse one. It is the decision of this Court in K. S. Rashid & Son v. The Income-tax Investigation Commission (1). In that case the Income-tax Investigation Commission located in Delhi was investigating the case of the petitioners under section 5 of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act 1947, although the petitioners were assessees belonging to Uttar Pradesh and their original assessments were made by the Income-tax authorities of that State. It was contended that the Punjab High Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution to the said Commission. This Court, after restating the two limitations on the power of the High Court to issue a writ, held that the Commission was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Punjab High Court and, therefore, the Punjab High Court had jurisdiction to issue the writ. This decision also (1) [1954] S.C.R. 738.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 181 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Manish Kumar Mishra vs Union Of India And 4 Ors. on 1 May, 2020

"14. The seat of a Government is sometimes mentioned in the Constitutions of various countries but many a time the seat is not so mentioned. But whether the seat of a Government is mentioned in the Constitution or not, there is undoubtedly a seat from which the Government as such functions as a fact. What Art. 226 requires is residence or location as a fact and if therefore there is a seat from which the Government functions as a fact even though that seat is not mentioned in the Constitution the High Court within whose territories that seat is located will be the High Court having jurisdiction under Art. 226 so far as the orders of the Government as such are concerned. Therefore, the view taken in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao (AIR 1953 SC 210) and K.S. Rashid and Son v. The Income Tax Investigation Commission (AIR 1954 SC 207) that there is twofold limitation on the power of the High Court to issue writs etc. under Art. 226, namely, (i) the power is to be exercised 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction', that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction, and (ii) the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be "within those territories" which clearly implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories, is the correct one."
Allahabad High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

S.C. Prashar vs Vasantsen Dwarkadas on 5 October, 1955

35. Great reliance was placed by Mr. Seervai on the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Rashid & Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission, which I have set out above. Writs of prohibition and certiorari were asked for by the petitioners before the Punjab High Court. The view taken by the learned Judges who decided the petition was that they had no jurisdiction to issue a writ under article 226 of the Constitution to the Income-tax Investigatiop Commission located in Delhi and investigating the case of the petitioners although the petitioners were assessees within the Uttar Pradesh State and their original assessments were made by the Income-tax authorities of that State. The Supreme Court reached the conclusion that this view taken by the Punjab High Court could not be sustained. A contention urged before the Punjab High Court on behalf of the respondents was that the Income-tax (Investigation Commission) Act, XXX of 1947, being an enactment of a special nature which created new rights and liabilities, the remedies provided in the Act itself for the breach or violation thereof where the only remedies which could be pursued by the aggrieved parties and articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution was not available to the petitioners. It would seem from the judgment of the Supreme Court that this contention had not found favour with their Lordships, but they did not deem it necessary to express any final opinion on the point in that case. After considering these two points their Lordships went on to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the remedy provided for in article 226 is a discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. It does appear, however, from the judgment that it was not a case where want of jurisdiction on the part of the respondents was patent on the face of the proceedings. Therefore, it is not possible to read the observations relied on by Mr. Seervai as an expression of the opinion that where a revenue statute is a complete code the entire procedure permitted by it should be exhausted before any petition for a writ of prohibition may lie or that in such a case the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion because under that code a question of absence of jurisdiction can also at a later stage be agitated before the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 40 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Radheshyam Makhanlal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 10 August, 1959

In K. S. Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission it was held by the Supreme Court that the Punjab High Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ under article 226 of the Constitution to the Income-tax Investigation Commission located in Delhi and investigating the case of the petitioner under section 5 of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, although the petitioners were assessees within the U.P. State and their original assessments were made by the income-tax authorities of that State.
Bombay High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Jayaswals Neco Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. [Along With ... on 2 July, 2007

The seat of a Government is sometimes mentioned in the Constitutions of various countries but many a time the seat is not so mentioned. But whether the seat of a Government is mentioned in the Constitution or not, there is undoubtedly a seat from which the Government as such functions as a fact. What Article 226 requires is residence or location as a fact and if therefore there is a seat from which the Government functions as a fact even though that seat is not mentioned in the Constitution the High Court within whose territories that seat is located will be the High Court having jurisdiction under Article 226 so far as the orders of the Government as such are concerned. Therefore, the view taken in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao [1953] S.C.R. 1144 and K. S. Rashid and Son v. The Income-tax Investigation Commission [1954] S.C.R. 738 that there is two-fold limitation on the power of the High Court to issue writs etc. under Article 226, namely, (i) the power is to be exercised 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction', that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction, and (ii) the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be ``within those territories'` which clearly implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories, is the correct one. (underlining added) As regards the second question in respect of cause of action, the Supreme Court held:
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 13 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Dr.Mgr Educational & Research ... vs The Union Of India on 18 August, 2022

14. The second decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners viz., K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission reported in 1954 SCR 738 was a decision which deals with the territorial jurisdiction of High Court, when part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. It did not deal with cases where an impugned order was passed pursuant to the directions given by another High Court, though part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the High Court where the writ petition was filed. Therefore, this decision also does not aid the petitioners to file this writ petition before the Madras High Court.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

Orissa Power Transmission Corp.Ltd.& ... vs Asian School Of Business Mgmt.Trust ... on 5 August, 2013

Instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the alternative remedy had been availed of, the Court may call upon the party to elect whether it will proceed with the alternative remedy or with the application under Article 226 [K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission AIR 1954 SC 207]. Therefore, the fact that a suit had already been filed by the appellant was not such a fact the suppression of which could have affected the final disposal of the writ petition on merits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Mukesh Modi vs . Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 April, 2014

This was followed by another Rashid case, namely, K.S. Rashid & Son v. The Income Tax Investigation Commissioner, [1954] 25ITR 167 (SC) which reiterated the above proposition and held that where alternative remedy existed, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226. This proposition was, however, qualified by the significant words, "unless there are good grounds therefor", which indicated that alternative remedy would not operate as an absolute bar and that Writ Petition under Article 226 could still be entertained in exceptional circumstances.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 60 - Cited by 9 - P K Lohra - Full Document

Orissa Power Transmission Corp.Ltd.& ... vs Asian School Of Business Mgmt.Trust ... on 5 August, 2013

Instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the alternative remedy had been availed of, the Court may call upon the party to elect whether it will proceed with the alternative remedy or with the application under Article 226 [K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission AIR 1954 SC 207]. Therefore, the fact that a suit had already been filed by the appellant was not such a fact the suppression of which could have affected the final disposal of the writ petition on merits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 21 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next