Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.52 seconds)Section 132 in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Supdt. Of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors vs Onkarmal Nathmal Trust Etc. Etc on 1 May, 1975
In the case of Supdt. of Taxes,
163
Dhubri & Ors. v. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust etc. etc. (1975)
Suppl. SCR 365; this Court dealt with the question whether a
notice under section 7(2) of the Assam Taxation (on goods
carried by Road or Inland Waterways) Act, 1961 was valid.
The prescribed period of limitation under the Act was two
years from the expiry of the relevant period. There was a
difference of opinion on this point. The majority view was
that the State was guilty of laches even though the State
was restrained by an order from taking any action under the
Act. The State did not pray for modification of the order.
The State followed the policy of inactivity. Therefore, the
notice under section 7(2) issued in that case was held
invalid.
Section 13 in The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 344 in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
Section 345 in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
Section 346 in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974
Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd vs Church Or South India Trust Assn. Csi ... on 29 April, 1992
15. Mr. Nariman appearing on behalf of the Company drew
our attention to the decision of this Court in the case of
Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. vs. Church of South India Trust
Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras; (1992) 3 SCC 3.
A distinction was drawn between quashing an order and stay
of operation of an order. It was explained in that judgment
that quashing of an order resulted in restoration of the
position as it stood on the date of passing of the order.
The stay of the operation of the order, however, did not
lead to such results.