Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (2.22 seconds)Section 220 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 281B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
Emphasis supplied
Page 23 of 26
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:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
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:
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: