Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 70 (0.69 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
Further, it is also observed from the above quoted paragraphs that the
Hon'ble Apex Court, while delivering the judgment in case of Gangadhara
Palo (supra), have referred to and relied upon the earlier judgment delivered
in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala [2001 (129) E.L.T. 11], but
have interpreted the legal position with regard to the doctrine of merger,
holding that when a SLP is dismissed, without assigning any reason, then in
that case, it cannot be inferred that the judgment of High Court has merged
with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. At the same time, it was also
held that when a SLP is dismissed with reasons, even if by recording only
one sentence, then the judgment of the High Court can be said to be merged
with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988
It was
approved by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gumam
Kaur, [1989] 1 SCC 101. The Bench held that, 'precedents sub-
B. Shama Rao vs The Union Territory Of Pondicherry on 20 February, 1967
In Shama Rao v. State of
Pondicherry, AIR 1967 SC 1680 it was ob- served, 'it is trite to say
33
E/87084/2019
that a decision is binding not because of its conclusions but in regard
to its ratio and the principles laid down therein'. Any declaration or
conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded without
any reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or authority of
a general nature binding as a precedent. Restraint in dissenting or
overruling is for sake of stability and uniformity but rigidity beyond
reasonable limits is inimical to the growth of law."
State Of U.P. And Anr vs M/S. Synthetics And Chemicals Ltd. And ... on 18 July, 1991
In
this regard, I refer to the case of State of U.P. v. Synthetics and
Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139, wherein Justice R.M. Sahai, in his
concurring opinion stated as follows:
M/S. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd vs Jindal Exports Ltd on 4 May, 2001
In
my view the said decisions are per incuriam as none of the decisions
correlates the facts with the decision rendered in that case. The issue
as I have observed earlier, in the case of the Slovak, was a refund
arising on account of the disputed credit which could not have been
utilized at the time when the unit was in operation.
Martand Dairy & Farm vs The Union Of India & Ors on 23 April, 1975
Taxation Considerations Stem from Administrative Experience
5.2 Taxation consideration may stem from administrative
experience and other factors of life and not artistic visulalisation or
neat logic and so the literal, though pedestrian interpretation must
prevail - Ref : Martand Dairy and Farm v. Union of India, AIR 1975
SC 1492, p. 1494: (1975) 4 SCC 313. Courts are not entitled to fill
any lacuna in any Act much less in a Taxing Act, but the courts will
also not stretch a point in favour of the tax-payer to enable him to
get by his astuteness the benefit which other tax-payer do not obtain