Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India) Ltd. vs Cce Kolhapur on 14 January, 2020 cites

State Of U. P vs Manbodhan Lal Srivastava on 20 September, 1957

In support of that contention, counsel invited our attention to the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, 1958 SCR 533, wherein their Lordships were considering the implication of non-compliance with the conditions provided in Article 320(3) of the Constitution on an order imposing punishment to a Government servant without reference to the Public Service Commission.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 553 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Formica India Division vs Collector Of Central Excise And Ors. on 29 March, 1995

In Formica India Division v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (SC), non-compliance with Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held to be insufficient to deny the benefit of a notification to the assessee. But the said benefit was afforded on the special circumstances of a case as could be seen from the following words :
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 36 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

B.O.I. Finance Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 19 March, 1997

Nor can we find support from the ratio in B.O.I. Finance Ltd. v. The Custodian & Others, JT 1997 (4) 15, that "infringements of the instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulations Act prohibiting the banks from entering into 35 E/1000/2010 buy-back arrangements do not invalidate such contracts entered into between the banks and it's customers", as it involved a question of invalidation of the contract. Here neither the contract nor the import is invalid or illegal and the question is only whether the importer is entitled to the concessional duty."
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 65 - Full Document
1