Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)
Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 5 December, 2006 cites

Mrs. Kamakshi R. Iyer vs Hindustan Door-Oliver Ltd. And Ors. on 24 November, 1995

In R. v. Oliver the accused was charged with having sold sugar as a wholesale seller without the necessary licence. It was held that whether the accused had a licence was a fact peculiarly within his own knowledge and proof of the fact that he had a licence lay upon him. It was further held that in the circumstances of the case the prosecution was under no necessity to give prima facie evidence of non- existence of a licence. In this case reference is made to some earlier decisions and it will be useful to notice the same.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Jaswant Singh Nerwal Etc vs State Of Punjab And Ors. Etc on 14 February, 1991

The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence including the transcript of the tape record have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. (See Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma) Page 5530 Submission of the Learned Counsel to the effect that the Central Government could reject a large number of applications which would render the entire process ineffective cannot be accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 275 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

State Of Bihar Etc. Etc vs P.P. Sharma, Ias And Anr on 2 April, 1991

The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence including the transcript of the tape record have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. (See Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma) Page 5530 Submission of the Learned Counsel to the effect that the Central Government could reject a large number of applications which would render the entire process ineffective cannot be accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 15092 - K Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next