Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.75 seconds)Income Tax Rules, 1962
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Devendra Prasad Gupta vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 12 January, 1977
16. The law laid down in the case of Devendra Prasad
Gupta Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (supra) in respect of
interpretation of the provision of Section 103A (3) of the Act was
doubted by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Ram Kishun
Mandal (supra) and, thus, the said case was referred for consideration
before the Full Bench. The Full Bench formulated three questions to
be answered in the said case.
Section 3 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ram Kishun Mandal And Etc. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. Etc. on 5 January, 1987
63. As the judgment in the matter of Ram Kishun
Mandal & Anr. (supra) has been delivered by a co-lateral bench of
three Judges, I do agree with the Brother Mr. Jayanandan Singh, J.
that the matter requires consideration by a larger Bench.
State Of Kerala vs K. M. Charia Abdullah & Co on 5 October, 1964
"Whenever a power is conferred on an
authority to revise an order, the authority is
entitled to examine the correctness, legality
and propriety of the order and to pass such
suitable orders as the authority may think fit
in the circumstances of the particular case
before it. When exercising such powers, there
is no reason why the authority should not be
entitled to hold an enquiry or direct an
enquiry to be held and, for that purpose, admit
additional material. The proceedings for
revision, if started suo motu, must not of
course be based on a mere conjecture and
there should be some ground for invoking the
revisional powers. Once these powers are
invoked, the actual interference must be based
on sufficient grounds, and, if it is considered
necessary that some additional enquiry should
be made to arrive at a proper and just
decision, there can be no bar to the revising
authority holding a further enquiry or
24 Patna High Court LPA No. 672 of 2009 dt. 8-09-2014
24 / 37
directing such an enquiry to be held by some
other appropriate authority. This principle has
been clearly recognised by this Court in the
State of Kerala v. Abdulla and Company
(1965) 16 STC 875 = (AIR 1965 SC 1585)."
Section 27 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Punjab Tenancy Rules
State Of A.P vs T.G. Lakshmainah Setty & Sons on 13 April, 1994
17. It will also be useful in this connection to
refer to the decision of this Court in Swastik
Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi (1968 ) 2 SCR
492 =(AIR 1968 SC 843) where this Court did
not accept the principle laid down by the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of
Andhra Pradesh v. T.G. Lakshmaiah Setty &
Sons (1961) 12 STC 663 (Andh Pra) that the
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax while
exercising revisional powers under the Sales
Tax Act of 1946 or of 1953 or of 1959 could
not travel beyond the material or record that is
available to the assessing authority and was
not entitled to find data to institute an enquiry
so as to include additional material in order to
judge the correctness of the order sought to be
revised and held: