Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)M/S R.N. Jadi & Brothers And Ors vs Subhashchandra on 10 July, 2007
42. It would also be profitable to reproduce para 14 of the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in a case titled as R.N.
of
Jadi & Brothers and others versus Subhashchandra,
reported in (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 420, herein:
Sadhuram Bansal vs Pulin Behari Sarkar & Ors on 26 April, 1984
43. The Apex Court in the case titled as Sadhuram
Bansal versus Pulin Behari Sarkar and others, reported in
of
(1984) 3 Supreme Court Cases 410, held that some procedure
here and there, mere technicalities here and there cannot be the
rt
ground to quash a rule. It is a duty of the Court to see that
proper justice is granted and rights are protected. It is apt to
reproduce paras 29, 30 and 35 of the judgment herein:
Rati Ram vs Niader Mal on 21 January, 1941
48. The question arose before the Allahabad High Court
of
as to what orders can be made by the revisional authority and
what is the mandate of the words 'as they think fit' in the case
rt
titled as Rati Ram versus Niader Mal, reported in (28) AIR
1941 Allahabad 215. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of
the judgment herein:
Swastik Oil Mills Ltd vs H. B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 November, 1967
49. The Apex Court in the case titled as Swastik Oil
Mills Ltd. versus H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of
Sales Tax, Bombay, reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court
843, has also discussed the issue. It is apt to reproduce para 2 of
the judgment herein:
State Of A.P vs T.G. Lakshmainah Setty & Sons on 13 April, 1994
In support of this proposition,
learned counsel referred us to a decision
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
rt
State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. G.
Lakshmaiah Setty & Sons., 196112 STC
663 (AP). In that case, the Deputy
Commissioner, in exercising the revisional
jurisdiction, was found by the High
Court to have based his assessment on
guesswork, and the Court held that
"this conjecture could not be a justification
for seeking to revise the order of the
assessing authority. If the Deputy
Commissioner could, on the material
before him, find data for revising the
assessment, it was open to him to do so. It
must be made clear that he has no
jurisdiction to travel beyond the record
that is available to the assessing authority
and the basis should be found on the
record already in existence." We are
unable to accept this principle laid down
by that High Court as correct. Whenever
a power is conferred on an authority to
revise an order, the authority is entitled to
examine the correctness, legality and
propriety of the order and to pass such
suitable orders as the authority may think
fit in the circumstances of the particular
case before it. ............
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs Dilbahar Singh on 27 August, 2014
51. The Apex Court in a recent judgment rendered in the
rt
case titled as Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. versus
Dilbahar Singh, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5018, discussed
the powers of the Appellate Court and the revisional Court and,
while discussing the expressions 'legality', 'propriety',
'correctness' and 'regularity', held that though the revisional
Court has vast powers, but has to determine only the questions of
law. It is apt to reproduce paras 25 and 27 to 30 herein: