Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.72 seconds)
Dr. Rahul Mittal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2022 cites

The State Of Bombay vs Pandurang Vinayak Chaphalkar And ... on 13 March, 1953

[See:- East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. vs. Finsbury Borough Council, (1951) 2 All ER 587, p. 589; referred to in State of Bombay vs. Pandurang Vinayak, supra, p. 246; C.I.T., Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, supra, p. 355; Rajendraswami vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad, AIR 1965 SC 502, p. 505; Shatrunjit (Raja) vs. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan, AIR 1971 SC 13 W.P. No.13445 of 2018 1474, p. 1476; Daya Singh vs. Dhan Kaur, AIR 1974 SC 665, p. 668; Boucher Pierre Andre vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, AIR 1975 SC 164, p. 166; Sundar Dass vs. Ram Parkash, AIR 1977 SC 1201, p. 1205; Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 3 SCC 1; State of West Bengal vs. Sadam K. Bormal, AIR 2004 SC 3666, p. 3673; Clariant International Ltd. vs. Securities & Exchange Board, (2004) 8 SCC 95 paras 6 and 7; See further Mohammad Iqbal Madar Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722, p. 727; Manorey Alias Manohar vs. Board of Revenue (U.P.), (2003) 5 SCC 521, pp. 526, 527 (deeming provision to be given full effect).
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 250 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958

[See:- East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. vs. Finsbury Borough Council, (1951) 2 All ER 587, p. 589; referred to in State of Bombay vs. Pandurang Vinayak, supra, p. 246; C.I.T., Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, supra, p. 355; Rajendraswami vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad, AIR 1965 SC 502, p. 505; Shatrunjit (Raja) vs. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan, AIR 1971 SC 13 W.P. No.13445 of 2018 1474, p. 1476; Daya Singh vs. Dhan Kaur, AIR 1974 SC 665, p. 668; Boucher Pierre Andre vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, AIR 1975 SC 164, p. 166; Sundar Dass vs. Ram Parkash, AIR 1977 SC 1201, p. 1205; Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 3 SCC 1; State of West Bengal vs. Sadam K. Bormal, AIR 2004 SC 3666, p. 3673; Clariant International Ltd. vs. Securities & Exchange Board, (2004) 8 SCC 95 paras 6 and 7; See further Mohammad Iqbal Madar Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722, p. 727; Manorey Alias Manohar vs. Board of Revenue (U.P.), (2003) 5 SCC 521, pp. 526, 527 (deeming provision to be given full effect).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 412 - Full Document

Shri Mundri Lal vs Smt. Sushila Rani & Anr on 18 September, 2007

Mundri Lal vs. Sushila Rani, (2007) 8 SCC 609 para 26] and to that end "it would be proper and even necessary to assume all those facts on which alone the fiction can operate" [See:- C.I.T., Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, AIR 1959 SC 352, p. 355]. In an oft-quoted passage, LORD ASQUITH stated: "If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequence and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it - . The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 31 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Raja Shatrunji vs Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan And Ors. on 21 April, 1971

[See:- East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. vs. Finsbury Borough Council, (1951) 2 All ER 587, p. 589; referred to in State of Bombay vs. Pandurang Vinayak, supra, p. 246; C.I.T., Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, supra, p. 355; Rajendraswami vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad, AIR 1965 SC 502, p. 505; Shatrunjit (Raja) vs. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan, AIR 1971 SC 13 W.P. No.13445 of 2018 1474, p. 1476; Daya Singh vs. Dhan Kaur, AIR 1974 SC 665, p. 668; Boucher Pierre Andre vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, AIR 1975 SC 164, p. 166; Sundar Dass vs. Ram Parkash, AIR 1977 SC 1201, p. 1205; Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 3 SCC 1; State of West Bengal vs. Sadam K. Bormal, AIR 2004 SC 3666, p. 3673; Clariant International Ltd. vs. Securities & Exchange Board, (2004) 8 SCC 95 paras 6 and 7; See further Mohammad Iqbal Madar Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722, p. 727; Manorey Alias Manohar vs. Board of Revenue (U.P.), (2003) 5 SCC 521, pp. 526, 527 (deeming provision to be given full effect).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Daya Singh (Dead) Through L.Rs. & Anr vs Dhan Kaur on 5 March, 1974

[See:- East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. vs. Finsbury Borough Council, (1951) 2 All ER 587, p. 589; referred to in State of Bombay vs. Pandurang Vinayak, supra, p. 246; C.I.T., Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, supra, p. 355; Rajendraswami vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad, AIR 1965 SC 502, p. 505; Shatrunjit (Raja) vs. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan, AIR 1971 SC 13 W.P. No.13445 of 2018 1474, p. 1476; Daya Singh vs. Dhan Kaur, AIR 1974 SC 665, p. 668; Boucher Pierre Andre vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, AIR 1975 SC 164, p. 166; Sundar Dass vs. Ram Parkash, AIR 1977 SC 1201, p. 1205; Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 3 SCC 1; State of West Bengal vs. Sadam K. Bormal, AIR 2004 SC 3666, p. 3673; Clariant International Ltd. vs. Securities & Exchange Board, (2004) 8 SCC 95 paras 6 and 7; See further Mohammad Iqbal Madar Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722, p. 727; Manorey Alias Manohar vs. Board of Revenue (U.P.), (2003) 5 SCC 521, pp. 526, 527 (deeming provision to be given full effect).
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 18 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

Boucher Pierre Andre vs Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, ... on 21 November, 1974

[See:- East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. vs. Finsbury Borough Council, (1951) 2 All ER 587, p. 589; referred to in State of Bombay vs. Pandurang Vinayak, supra, p. 246; C.I.T., Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, supra, p. 355; Rajendraswami vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad, AIR 1965 SC 502, p. 505; Shatrunjit (Raja) vs. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan, AIR 1971 SC 13 W.P. No.13445 of 2018 1474, p. 1476; Daya Singh vs. Dhan Kaur, AIR 1974 SC 665, p. 668; Boucher Pierre Andre vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, AIR 1975 SC 164, p. 166; Sundar Dass vs. Ram Parkash, AIR 1977 SC 1201, p. 1205; Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 3 SCC 1; State of West Bengal vs. Sadam K. Bormal, AIR 2004 SC 3666, p. 3673; Clariant International Ltd. vs. Securities & Exchange Board, (2004) 8 SCC 95 paras 6 and 7; See further Mohammad Iqbal Madar Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722, p. 727; Manorey Alias Manohar vs. Board of Revenue (U.P.), (2003) 5 SCC 521, pp. 526, 527 (deeming provision to be given full effect).
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 73 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Sunder Dass vs Ram Prakash on 24 February, 1977

[See:- East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. vs. Finsbury Borough Council, (1951) 2 All ER 587, p. 589; referred to in State of Bombay vs. Pandurang Vinayak, supra, p. 246; C.I.T., Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, supra, p. 355; Rajendraswami vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad, AIR 1965 SC 502, p. 505; Shatrunjit (Raja) vs. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan, AIR 1971 SC 13 W.P. No.13445 of 2018 1474, p. 1476; Daya Singh vs. Dhan Kaur, AIR 1974 SC 665, p. 668; Boucher Pierre Andre vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, AIR 1975 SC 164, p. 166; Sundar Dass vs. Ram Parkash, AIR 1977 SC 1201, p. 1205; Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 3 SCC 1; State of West Bengal vs. Sadam K. Bormal, AIR 2004 SC 3666, p. 3673; Clariant International Ltd. vs. Securities & Exchange Board, (2004) 8 SCC 95 paras 6 and 7; See further Mohammad Iqbal Madar Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722, p. 727; Manorey Alias Manohar vs. Board of Revenue (U.P.), (2003) 5 SCC 521, pp. 526, 527 (deeming provision to be given full effect).
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 127 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Ashok Leland Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 7 January, 2004

[See:- East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. vs. Finsbury Borough Council, (1951) 2 All ER 587, p. 589; referred to in State of Bombay vs. Pandurang Vinayak, supra, p. 246; C.I.T., Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, supra, p. 355; Rajendraswami vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad, AIR 1965 SC 502, p. 505; Shatrunjit (Raja) vs. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan, AIR 1971 SC 13 W.P. No.13445 of 2018 1474, p. 1476; Daya Singh vs. Dhan Kaur, AIR 1974 SC 665, p. 668; Boucher Pierre Andre vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, AIR 1975 SC 164, p. 166; Sundar Dass vs. Ram Parkash, AIR 1977 SC 1201, p. 1205; Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 3 SCC 1; State of West Bengal vs. Sadam K. Bormal, AIR 2004 SC 3666, p. 3673; Clariant International Ltd. vs. Securities & Exchange Board, (2004) 8 SCC 95 paras 6 and 7; See further Mohammad Iqbal Madar Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722, p. 727; Manorey Alias Manohar vs. Board of Revenue (U.P.), (2003) 5 SCC 521, pp. 526, 527 (deeming provision to be given full effect).
Supreme Court of India Cites 69 - Cited by 249 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next