Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.60 seconds)
Rainbow Trading Co. By Its Proprietor S. ... vs Assistant Collector Of Customs, ... on 30 October, 1962 cites

Suraj Mall Mohta And Co vs A. V. Visvanatha Sastri And Another on 28 May, 1954

37. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as Section 171-A is designed to secure evidence, the rule of procedure to be adopted should be the same as in a judicial trial. He referred in this connection to Surajmal Mohta and Co. v. Visvanatha Sastri, . That was a case where Section 5(4) of the Taxation of Income (Investigation Commission) Act came up for consideration. By that provision such of those evaders of income-tax who in the opinion of the Government evaded to a substantial extent, were put up before the Commission for which a more stringent procedure was prescribed, while the other tax evaders similarly situate would be liable to be proceeded against under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The section was struck down as discriminatory. Mahajan, C. J., observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 199 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Sri C. I. Emden vs The State Of U. P on 15 December, 1959

In C.I. Emden v. State of U. P., a case of discrimination with respect to a presumption under the law arose. Under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the statute raises a presumption against a public servant charged with corruption while under the general law of evidence the presumption is quite the other way. Upholding the validity of the provision in the light of Article 14 Gajendragadkar, J. said :
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 64 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next