Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.86 seconds)Section 30 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
Balkrishna Savalram Pujari And Others vs Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharajsansthan & ... on 26 March, 1959
In that context, after
adverting to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Balkrishna Savalram (supra) and other precedents, the Full
Bench held that denial of the benefit under Clause 49 of 1956
Settlement was a continuing wrong.
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Amritsar vs Suresh Seth on 7 April, 1981
In the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Sursh Seth 6
the Supreme Court enunciated that true principle appears to be
that where the wrong complained of is the omission to perform
a positive duty requiring a person to do a certain act the test to
determine whether such a wrong is a continuing one is whether
the duty in question is one which requires him to continue to do
that act. The Supreme Court went on to give illustrations of
continuing wrong. The relevant part of paragraph 17 of the said
judgment reads as under:
Shiv Dass vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 January, 2007
31. After adverting to the pronouncements of the Supreme
Court in the cases of Balkrishna Savalram (supra), M. R. Gupta
(supra) and Shiv Dass vs. Union of India and others 7, wherein
7 (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 274.
Maya Rani Punj vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 11 December, 1985
26. It is well settled that as long as the default in
performance of obligation continues, the wrong is deemed to
have continued and therefore, it is to be taken as a
continuing wrong. If the duty continues from day to day, the
non-performance of that duty from day to day is a
continuing wrong. (Vide Smt. Maya Rani Punj v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi,).