Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.36 seconds)State Bank Of India vs M/S. B.S. Agricultural Industries(I) on 20 March, 2009
15. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State Bank of India (supra) was subsequently applied in the case of Singal Udyog (supra) and while considering the Order passed by the National Commission wherein the delay of 150 days in preferring the Appeal, was not condoned and the Appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission itself on the ground of inordinate delay of 150 days as well as apparent lack of merits, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the National Commission having found that the Appeal was barred by time, could not have dealt with merits of the matter.
Commissioner Customs, Central Excise & ... vs M/S Monsanto Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd. on 27 March, 2014
The aforesaid view was relied upon by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax v. Monsanto Manufacture Pvt. Ltd. MANU/UP/0973/2014 to observe as under:
The Business Profits Act, 1947
Section 24 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
M/S. Singal Udyog vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 2 December, 2019
16. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases to the facts of the present case, we find that the State Commission while passing the impugned Orders had dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Petitioner both on the ground of inordinate delay as well as on merits which could not have been done. Thus, the impugned Orders passed by the State Commission are vitiated in law and are liable to be set aside.
Section 73 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Anr. vs British India Corporation Ltd. & Ors. on 25 March, 2003
In Union of India and Anr. v. British India Corporation Ltd. and Ors. MANU/SC/1194/2003 : (2003) 9 SCC 50, while dealing with an aspect of limitation for an application for refund prescribed in Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, this Court held that the question of limitation was a mandate to the forum and, irrespective of the fact whether it was raised or not, the forum must consider and apply it."
1