Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (3.09 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & ... vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) & Anr on 27 January, 1989
In this context, it is relevant
to note that the principle of natural justice (audi
alteram partem) has been incorporated in Section 245-
D itself. The sole overall limitation upon the
Commission thus appears to be that it should act in
8
accordance with the provisions of the Act. The scope
of enquiry, whether by High Court under Article 226 or
by this Court under Article 136 is also the same-
whether the order of the Commission is contrary to any
of the provisions of the Act and if so, has it prejudiced
the petitioner/appellant apart from ground of bias,
fraud and malice which, of course, constitute a
separate and independent category. Reference in this
behalf; may be had to the decision of this Court in R.B.
Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das v.
Settlement Commission (IT and WT) (1989) 1 SCC 628:
Section 245D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Jyotendrasinhji vs S.I. Tripathi And Ors on 2 April, 1993
Judgment relied upon by the assessee/respondent no. 2 in the case of
Jyotendrasinhji (supra) para 16 of which is as follows:
Section 292C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P. And Anr vs Johri Mal on 21 April, 2004
"It is well-settled that while exercising the
power of judicial review the court is more concerned
with the decision making process than the merit of
the decision itself. In doing so, it is often argued by
the defender of an impugned decision that the court
is not competent to exercise its power when there are
serious disputed questions of facts; when the decision
of the Tribunal or the decision of the fact finding
body or the arbitrator is given finality by the statute
which governs a given situation or which by nature of
the activity the decision maker's opinion on facts is
final. But while examining and scrutinizing the
decision making process it becomes inevitable to also
appreciate the facts of a given case as otherwise the
decision cannot be tested under the grounds of
illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
How far the court of judicial review can re-appreciate
the findings of facts depends on the ground of
judicial review. For example, if a decision is
challenged as irrational, it would be well-nigh
impossible to record a finding whether a decision is
rational or irrational without first evaluating the
facts of the case and coming to a plausible conclusion
the then testing the decision of the authority on the
touch-stone of the tests laid down by the court with
5
special reference to a given case. This position is
well settled in Indian administrative law. Therefore,
to a limited extent of scrutinizing the decision
making process, it is always open to the court to
review the evaluation of facts by the decision maker."
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Shriyans Pradad Jain vs Income-Tax Officer And Others on 14 September, 1993
In Shriyans Prasad Jain v. ITO [1993] 204 ITR 616 (SC) the
Supreme Court, speaking through the same learned judge, observed as
follows (page 627):