Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 18 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
Emphasis supplied
In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of
Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex
Court held as follows:
Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar And Ors. on 5 February, 2014
Emphasis supplied
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs.
Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar
observations:
Rajesh Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh 13 Wps/6051/2017 ... on 23 March, 2018
Emphasis supplied
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh
v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated
20.03.2009 had held as under:
Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 November, 2003
It appears that the Complainant has been repeatedly seeking information
on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the
Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter-
productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the
Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of
West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held: