Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.46 seconds)
K. S. Ravikumar vs Director General Of Income Tax ... on 17 October, 2022 cites

Johnson Kurian vs High Court Of Other States on 29 December, 2021

"personal" is not. When a statute does not define a term, we typically "give the phrase its ordinary meaning," [Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S., 559 U.S. 133, 130 S. Ct. 1265, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1, 8 (2010)]. "Personal" ordinarily refers to individuals. We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence, or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities. This is not to say that corporations do not have correspondence, influence, or tragedies of their own, only that we do not use the word "personal" to describe them. Certainly, if the chief executive officer of a corporation approached the chief financial officer and said, "I have something personal to tell you," we would not assume the CEO was about to discuss company business. Responding to a request for information, an individual might say, "that's personal." A company spokesman, when asked for information about the company, would not. In fact, we often use the word "personal" to mean precisely the opposite of business related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company's view."
Central Information Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011

Moreover, the Commission also examined the nature of fiduciary relationship involved in the instant matter whereby the Respondent denied the information of ITRs under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI act,2005. The Commission referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 wherein it was held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 8906 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1