Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.29 seconds)
Kusumam Hotels (P) Ltd vs Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors on 16 May, 2008 cites

Kasinka Trading And Another, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Another on 18 October, 1994

20. Our attention, however, has been drawn to a decision of this Court in Kasinka Trading & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. [(1995) 1 SCC 274]. Therein the power of the State to change its policy decision in public interest was emphasized. It was held that the power which can be used for grant of concession, namely, Section 25(1) of the Customs Act itself is the source to rescind the earlier notification, stating :
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 256 - M N Venkatachaliah - Full Document

Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. ... vs Electricity Inspector And E.T.I.O. & ... on 15 May, 2007

Whereas the bills are issued only in respect of the dues arising in terms of the law as was applicable prior to the coming into force of 2003 Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 56 shall apply after the said Act came into force. The Board could have even framed a tariff in terms of the provisions appended to Section 61 of the Act. Appellants incurred liability to pay the bill. The liability to pay electricity charges is a statutory liability. The Act provides for its consequences. Unless, therefore, the 2003 Act specifically introduced, the bar of limitation as regards the liability of the consumer incurred prior to coming into force of the said Act. In our opinion, having regard to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the liability continues. [See Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector and E.T.I.O. and Ors. [(2007) 5 SCC 447].
Supreme Court of India Cites 120 - Cited by 204 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Shrijee Sales Corporation & Another vs Union Of India on 20 December, 1996

`The burden of customs duty, etc. is passed on to the consumer and therefore the question of the appellants being put to a huge loss is not understandable.' (See also Shrijee Sales Corpn. v. Union of India56 and STO v. Shree Durga Oil Mills) We do not see the relevance of this decision to the facts of this case. Here the representations are clear and unequivocal"."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 226 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next