Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.40 seconds)

Chandra Prakash Tiwari And Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla And Ors on 9 May, 2002

37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency Page 6 of 8 between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 400 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Gajendra R. Raval vs The Director Genreal Of Incom Tax ... on 20 January, 2006

19. The issue raised herein has been settled by a Bench of three Member Bench of the CIC which, in the opinion of this Court, is binding on the Bench which has passed the impugned order. A Bench of three Commissioners of the CIC in G.R. Rawal v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), 2008 SCC OnLine CIC 1008, while considering the very same issue has observed as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Itat on 22 June, 2010

"15. Thus, both the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with disclosure of information. While Right to Information Act is a general law concerning the disclosure of information by the public authorities, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act is a special legislation dealing with disclosure of information concerning the assesses. This Commission in "Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. ITAT, decided on 18th September 2007 decided by a Full Bench, has dealt with the issue of applicability of special law to the exclusion of the general law.
Central Information Commission Cites 17 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Central Public Information Officer vs Kailash Chandra Moondra on 12 January, 2023

7. The Commission refers to a decision of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 340/2023 & CM APPL. 1348/2023, Central Public Information Officer vs. Kailash Chandra Moondra, wherein it has been categorically held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with disclosure of information. While the Right to Information Act is a general law concerning the disclosure of information by the public authorities, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act is a special legislation dealing with disclosure of information concerning the assesses. Therefore, the Commission agrees with Page 4 of 8 the stand taken by the Respondent in denying the information. The relevant extract of the aforesaid Delhi High Court order is reproduced hereinbelow:
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next