Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.57 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Mushtaq Ahmad vs Mohd. Habibur Rehman Faizi& Ors on 31 January, 1996
In Mushtaq Ahmad v. Mohd. Habibur Rehman Faizi & Ors.
[JT 199 (1) 656] this Court held as under:
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Abdul Bakhi And Bros on 8 April, 1964
This controversy is no longer res integra.In State of
A.P. v. Abdul Bakhi & Bros. [(1964) 7 SCR 764], a three-
Judge Bench of this Court considered a similar question
having arisen under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act,
1950. The respondent was carrying on business of tanning
hides and skins and selling the tanned skins. He kept in
stores a total quantity of tanning barks. He contended that
since he was not dealing in them but stored them for the
purpose of manufacture, he could not be held to be a dealer
and that, therefore, he is not liable to pay the sales tax
on its turnover. This Court had rejected the contention and
held that when a person is buying or selling a commodity-
specified in the Rule for use as finished products in
another commercial use, he is engaged in the business of
buying, selling or supplying that commodity and, therefore,
he is a dealer within the meaning of that Act.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Shri Pirthi Chand And Anr on 30 November, 1995
The question then is: whether the High Court is right
in its exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?
This Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pirthi i & Anr.
[Crl. A. 1752 of 1995] decided on November 30, 1995 held as
under:
Section 7 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
State Of Bihar vs Sri Rajendra Agrawalla on 18 January, 1996
In State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [Crl. A. No.66
of 1996] decided on January 18, 1996, this Court observed as
under:
1