Category: Allied Laws

Archive for the ‘Allied Laws’ Category


Payadhi Foods P. Ltd. v. UOI 2015 (325) ELT 705 (Cal.)(HC)

Appellate Tribunal – Early hearing – Application must be considered.
When an application is taken out seeking for an early hearing of the said appeal, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the date but should not have thrown the said application at the threshold that it will be taken up in due course.

Megh Raj Bansal v. CE&SAT (2012) 13 GSTR 75 (P&H)(HC)

Finance Act ,1994
S.73: Appelate Tribunal – Adjournment – Medical certificate not necessary while seeking adjournment on medical ground-Order of Appellate Tribunal is set aside .

CC (Import) Mumbai v. Wartsila India Ltd 2010 (254) ELT 406 (Bom) (HC)

Appellate Tribunal – Natural justice -Reasoned order- Judgement cited but no reference found in the order, nor any discussion with respect to rival submission found in the order- One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out- Order of Tribunal set aside .

Chandrabhai K. Bhoir & Ors v. Krishna Arjun Bhoir & Ors AIR 2009 SC 1645

Indian Succession Act , 1925
S.302: Order – Probate – Interpretation – Order passed without jurisdiction is nullity- Though the order is passed by consent -Principle of resjudicata does not apply –
The question arose for consideration was in respect of application filed u/s. 302 of the Indian Succession Act 1925.

Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Anr. (2006) 1 SCC 75 (para 15)

Code of Civil procedure Code, 1908 .
S.151: : Appeal- Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. [ Rule 4 (2) , Order 3 ]

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajkumari (Smt.) & Ors AIR 2008 SC 403

Interpretation of taxing statutes-Judgements to be read ..
Art : 141:Precedent – What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgement- Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s Theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context.

State Bank of India & Anr v Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 2361

Indian Evidence Act , 1872 .

S. 92 : Documents- construction- Interpretation of document – A document must primarily be construed on the basis of the terms and conditions contained therein- It is also trite that while construing a document the court shall not apply any words which the author thereof did not use. [S.91 ,Indian Contract Act ,1872, S. 124 ]

Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 780

Indian Succession Act, 1925
S.63:Requirement of a valid will – The attesting witness should speak not only about the testators signature or affixing his mark to the will but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator.

Common Cause (A Registered Society) and Ors. v. UOI AIR (2017) 394 ITR 220 / 245 Taxman 214 (SC)/ (2017) 11 SCC 731 / 2017 SUPREME COURT 540

Indian Evidence Act 1872.

S.34: Books of Accounts – Entries in Loose papers – Incriminating materials seized in raids conducted on industries – Not maintained in the regular course of business – Not Admissible [Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974), S. 156 Income -tax Act 1961 S. 2(13) ].

Dinshaw Rusi Mehta v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1557

Indian Evidence Act 1872.

S.56: Evidence – Subsequent Events during litigation – Having direct bearing on the issue can be considered by the Court even if it is produced for the first time. [ Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ,S. 36 ]