Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.53 seconds)

State Of Maharashtra vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr on 28 July, 1982

21. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argues that the examination of the witness­PW­1 has to be read in its entirety and going through the same, PW­1's stand is consistent and coherent on the fact that it was defendant which was liable to pay the tax prior to 15.01.1998. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the judgment of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ram Dass Shrinivas Nayak (1982) 2 SCC 463 to contend that the plaintiff could not be allowed to withdraw his admission, once recorded during evidence. After having heard submissions of parties, I find that the application for correction of suggestion in testimony of PW­1 dated 17.12.2012 was filed after a prolonged delay of more than one year and seven months. The reason for such delay has remained inexplicable. Secondly, even if the said admission of PW­1 is eschewed from record, there is ample evidence to hold that it was not the liability of the defendant to pay any tax prior to the date of registration of plaintiff under the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 529 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni And ... vs The State Of Madras And Others on 4 May, 1960

"...45. Earlier also a Constitution Bench of this Court in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni vs. State of Madras[10] construed the principle of ejusdem generis wherein it was observed as follows : " ........ The rule is that when general words follow particular and specific words of the same nature, the general words must be confined to the things of the same kind as those specified. But it is clearly laid down by decided cases that the specific words must form a distinct genus or category. It is not an inviolable rule of law, but is only permissible inference in the absence of an indication to the contrary."
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 246 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next