Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.81 seconds)
Surendra Kumar Jain And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 11 January, 2018 cites

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 July, 2009

In that decision, the five-judge Bench of this Court affirmed the Full Bench decision in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Union of India AIR 2010 Del 43 (FB) after noting that the Full Bench had held that: ―...as the appellate authority is situate in New Delhi, the Delhi High Court has the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to apply the principle of forum non conveniens to refuse exercise of jurisdiction‖.
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 36 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Ex-Constable Dilip Kumar Jha on 26 October, 2016

61. Later, in Union of India v. Dilip Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated, ―it is settled law that a proviso does not travel beyond the provision to which it is a proviso.‖ Therefore, there has to be a satisfaction that the ‗proceeds of crime' are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in a manner that might frustrate the confiscation proceedings under the PMLA. This is, therefore, another safeguard as far as the second proviso to Section 5(1) PMLA is concerned.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 20 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 15 September, 2015

72. Reasons to believe cannot be a rubber stamping of the opinion already formed by someone else. The officer who is supposed to write down his reasons to believe has to independently apply his mind. Further, and more importantly, it cannot be a mechanical reproduction of the words in the statute. When an authority judicially reviewing such a decision peruses such reasons to believe, it must be apparent to the reviewing authority that the officer penning the reasons has applied his mind to the materials available on record and has, on that basis, arrived at his reasons to believe. The process of thinking of the officer must be discernible. The reasons have to be made explicit. It is only the reasons that can enable the reviewing authority to discern how the officer formed his reasons to believe. As explained in Oriental Insurance Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2015] 378 ITR 421 (Delhi), ―the prima facie formation of belief should be rational, coherent and not ex facie incorrect and contrary to what is on record‖.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 24 - V Bakhru - Full Document
1