Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)

T.R.Thandur vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 April, 1996

We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the State that an application for exemption can be maintained only before the excess is determined, under Section 10. In our view, the scheme of the Act is to the contrary. The view taken by the High Court following the decision of this Court in T.R. Thandur v. Union of India and Ors., [1996] 3 SCC 690; Darothi Clare Parreira (Smt.) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [1996] 9 SCC 633 and State of A.P., represented by Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department, Hyderabad v. Vallum Venkateswara Rao, (1997) 3 ALT 417, does not call for any interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 57 - J S Verma - Full Document

Smt.Darothi Clare Parreira & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 25 July, 1996

We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the State that an application for exemption can be maintained only before the excess is determined, under Section 10. In our view, the scheme of the Act is to the contrary. The view taken by the High Court following the decision of this Court in T.R. Thandur v. Union of India and Ors., [1996] 3 SCC 690; Darothi Clare Parreira (Smt.) and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [1996] 9 SCC 633 and State of A.P., represented by Secretary to Govt., Revenue Department, Hyderabad v. Vallum Venkateswara Rao, (1997) 3 ALT 417, does not call for any interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 38 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1