Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Ors vs A.N. Saxena on 27 March, 1992
It rejected the contention following the decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. A.N. Saxena While rejecting the said contention the Bench drew particular attention to the following observations in A.N. Saxena: "In the first place, we cannot, but confess our astonishment at the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. In a case like this the Tribunal, we feel, should have been very careful before granting stay in a disciplinary proceedings at an interlocutory stage. The imputations made against the respondent were extremely serious and the facts alleged, if proved, would have established misconduct and misbehaviour. It is surprising that without apparently considering whether the memorandum of charges deserved to be enquired into or not, granted a stay of disciplinary proceedings as it his done. If the disciplinary proceedings in such serious matters are stayed so lightly as the Tribunal appears to have done, it would be extremely difficult to bring any wrongdoer to book. We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order of the tribunal and we direct that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in terms of the charge-sheet dated March 13, 1989 shall be proceeded with according to law. In fact, we would suggest that disciplinary proceedings should be proceeded with as early as possible and with utmost zeal". The Bench further opined that "the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of the said decision, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal can not be upheld." Evidently because the said appeal was preferred against an interlocutory order made by the Tribunal, the Bench directed the Tribunal to deal with the original application in the light of the decision in A.N. Saxena. The Bench directed expressly that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were to continue.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
T. C. Basappa vs T. Nagappa And Another on 5 May, 1954
Therefore, the principles, norms and the constraints which apply to the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal. If the original application of the respondent were to be filed in the High Court it would have been termed, properly speaking, as a writ of prohibition. A writ of prohibition is issued only when patent lack of jurisdiction is made out. It is true that a High Court acting under Article 226 is not bound by the technical rules applying to the issuance of prerogative writs like certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in United Kingdom, yet the basic principles and norms applying to the said writs must be kept in view, as observed by this Court in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Anr. It was observed by Mukherjee, J. speaking for the Constitution Bench:
Union Of India And Ors vs K. K. Dhawan on 27 January, 1993
14. Before parting with this case, we may refer to the decision or this Court in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan . Following A.N. Saxena, this Court held that a disciplinary inquiry can be held even with respect to the conduct of an officer in discharge of his judicial or quasi-judicial duties. Having said so, this Court set out the situations in which disciplinary action can be taken with respect to the judicial/quasi-judicial conduct. Paragraphs (28) and (29) of the judgment will bring out the ratio:
D.V. Bakshi And Others Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others on 14 July, 1993
The learned Counsel submitted that the applicant has been served with a chargesheet on account of the charges which relate to the discharge of quasi-judicial functions by the applicant. He, therefore, prayed for that as per Supreme Court's decision in the case of V.D. Trivedi v. Union of India, interim directions may be issued restraining the respondents from proceeding against the applicant under the Disciplinary & Appeal Rules.
1