Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.58 seconds)
S. Ramachandran vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 January, 2018 cites

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

Eastern Institute For Integrated ... vs Joint Director, Directorate Of ... on 14 December, 2015

82. It was then contended on the strength of the decisions in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261; Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning v. Joint Directorate 2016 Cri LJ 526, Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. v. Union of India (decision dated 9th March 2016 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA No.13949 of 2014) and Uday Navinchandra Sanghani v. Union of India (decision dated 1st April 2016 of the Gujarat W.P.(C) 5320/2017 & connected batch matters Page 44 of 48 High Court SCA No.10076/2015) that even that Single Member has to necessarily be a Judicial Member (JM) and not an Administrative Member (AM).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

L.Chandrakumar vs The Union Of India on 21 January, 2015

83. The reliance on L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India (supra) is misplaced. There the question was whether the ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court and vesting the powers of the High Court in a Tribunal is constitutionally valid. That is not what is sought to be done under Section 8 PMLA. It is only to provide an internal judicial review of the orders passed by the authorities under Section 5(1) PMLA. The AA under Section 8 PMLA cannot, therefore, be equated with an Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 (ATA). The Central Administrative Tribunal under the ATA was vested with the powers originally with a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Those were Tribunals under Article 323-B of the Constitution of India. The AA is not that kind of a Tribunal at all. The Court is, therefore, unable to agree with judgments of the learned Single Judges of the Sikkim and Gujarat High Courts in this context.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 65 - T Raja - Full Document
1