Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.61 seconds)
Dhawan Creative Prints Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 11 January, 2018 cites

P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors on 24 April, 2007

It is contended that the ‗right to property' being a human right, as explained in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59, there can be numerous instances where resort need not be had to the powers of attachment when in fact there is no real basis, material or apprehension that the property would be concealed, transferred or dealt with in a manner that frustrates its confiscation. In other words, resort to the second proviso should be had in the rarest of rare cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 438 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Dwarka Prasad vs Dwarka Das Saraf on 11 August, 1975

60. The word ―immediately‖ also imports a sense of urgency into the situation that warrants exercise of the powers. The reasons to believe, as recorded by the officer must reflect this sense of immediacy which impels the officer to invoke the power. The Court is in agreement that the second proviso to Section 5(1) has to be certainly read with the main provision itself. As pointed out by learned counsel for the Petitioners, a proviso cannot be interpreted in a manner to render redundant the main provision itself. As explained in Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf (1976) 1 SCC 128:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 207 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1