Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.35 seconds)
Rajdhani Park Kalyan Karini Samiti vs Financial Commissioner And Ors. [Along ... on 15 June, 2007
cites
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Punjab Land Revenue Rules
Indian Bank vs M/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996
In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd. (supra) the legal position was explained thus (SCC, p. 562):
Smt. Bimla Devi And Ors. vs The Financial Commissioner And Ors. on 16 July, 2003
27. Therefore, the decision in Harbhajan Singh is a complete answer to the question framed in Issue A. It is held that the Financial Commissioner, exercising powers under Section 42 cannot review an order passed earlier by him or the predecessor on the very same subject matter. To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in Bimla Devi v. Financial Commissioner (supra) which this Court respectfully concurs with and follows.
Sarguja Transport Service vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal, ... on 12 November, 1986
(iv) The Trust having filed a writ petition to challenge the order dated 9.7.1985 and having withdrawn it without reserving liberty to challenge it later, could no longer be heard to say that the order dated 9.7.1985 was bad in law. Reliance is placed on the decision in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal ; The Bhopal Sugar Industries v. The Income Tax Officer (1961) 1 SCR 475 and finally Lacchman Singh v. State of H.P. .
The Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd vs The Income-Tax Officer, Bhopal on 2 September, 1960
(iv) The Trust having filed a writ petition to challenge the order dated 9.7.1985 and having withdrawn it without reserving liberty to challenge it later, could no longer be heard to say that the order dated 9.7.1985 was bad in law. Reliance is placed on the decision in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal ; The Bhopal Sugar Industries v. The Income Tax Officer (1961) 1 SCR 475 and finally Lacchman Singh v. State of H.P. .
Lacchman Singh vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 29 January, 2004
(iv) The Trust having filed a writ petition to challenge the order dated 9.7.1985 and having withdrawn it without reserving liberty to challenge it later, could no longer be heard to say that the order dated 9.7.1985 was bad in law. Reliance is placed on the decision in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal ; The Bhopal Sugar Industries v. The Income Tax Officer (1961) 1 SCR 475 and finally Lacchman Singh v. State of H.P. .
Chainraj Ramchand, Registered ... vs V.S. Narayanaswamy And Ors. on 31 August, 1981
(v) Shri Nand Lal was an illiterate person and was not in a position to give undertaking on behalf of the partnership firm Respondent No. 6. Such a statement was not valid and could not bind the firm. He relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Chainraj Ramchand v. S.Narayanaswamy .
Smt. Sawarni vs Smt. Inder Kaur And Others on 23 August, 1996
ii) Grant of mutation does not amount to conferring title. Reliance is placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sawarni v. Inder Kaur .