What is 1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of U.P authority for?

A plaint cannot be rejected based on the defendant's allegations in a written statement or an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court must consider only the averments made in the plaint itself.

How many judgments cite 1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of U.P?

13 judgments on BharatTax cite 1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of U.P (9 SCC 512), spanning 2015 to 2019.

1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of U.P (9 SCC 512)

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Oscar Investment Ltd

Appeal is allowed and the suit instituted by the

ITA/86/2019HC Delhi04 Sept 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 151

…matical sense. As observed earlier, the language of Clause (d) is quite clear but if any authority is required, one may usefully refer to the judgments of this Court in Liverpool and London S.P. and I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr. (2004) 9 SCC 512 and Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510.” (emphasis added) 12. As can be seen from the aforesaid discussion, a plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of allegations levelled by the defendant in the written statement or for that matter, in an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, fo…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. V.Dhana Reddy AND Co

ITTA/137/2017HC Telangana14 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

For Appellant: - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lucknow Thru. AssttFor Respondent: - Gaurav Sharma And Anr

Section 163Section 166Section 173

…n for filing of an application for 11 condonation of delay under a wrong provision of law will not vitiate the application. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya Vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya; (2017) 9 SCC 700, has held that it is by now well settled that a mere wrong mention of the provision in the application would not prohibit a party to the litigation from getting justice. Ultimately, the courts are meant to do justice and not to decide applications based on technicalities. The relevant portion of paragraph 16 is extracted here- in-below:-…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ge Be Pvt Ltd

ITA/376/2017HC Karnataka03 Aug 2017

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Rajendra Badamikar

Section 13(1)(c)Section 227Section 397

…a @ K. Lenin & Another Vs. Sri. Gopal Sheelum Reddy & Another [Criminal Appeal No.2114/2017- Arising out of SLP (CRl.) No.8279/2016] iii) Yogesh V. State Maharashtra [2008) 10 SCC 394 iv) CBI, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayan Rao [(2012) 9 SCC 512] v) Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another [1979) 3 SCC 4] vi) State of M.P. Vs. Mohanlal Soni [(2002) 6 SCC 338] vii) Dilwar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 2 SCC 135 11 9. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 adopts the arguments advanced by the Senior counsel appearing for Resp…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd

ITA/189/2017HC Delhi24 Mar 2017

Bench: This Court On 29Th August, 2017 When Notice Thereof Was Ordered To Be Issued. The Counsels Were Heard On 12Th October, 2017 & Orders Reserved. 3. The Petitioner/Plaintiff Instituted The Suit, From Which This Petition Arises, For Recovery Of Possession & Mesne Profits With Respect To Property No.B-237/B, Greater Kailash – I, New Delhi From The Two Respondents / Defendants Being The Daughter-In-Law & The Granddaughter Of The Petitioner/Plaintiff, Pleading (I) That The Petitioner / Plaintiff Is The Owner In Possession Of Property No.B-237/B, Greater Kailash – I, New Delhi; (Ii) That The Respondents / Defendants Are In Possession Of Rooms On First Floor Of The

Section 115

…Rajiv Gandhi (1986) 1 SCC 573, I.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (1998) 2 SCC 70, Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers (2004) 11 SCC 168 and Liverpool and London S.P. and I Association Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I (2004) 9 SCC 512 has gone to the extent of holding that the Courts are required to sift through the pleadings carefully and to ensure that suits making only a semblance of a case or a defence do not clog up the time of the Courts at the cost of other deserving matters. It has been held that suits which are found by the Court to be deadwood and having no chance…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I vs. Shri Suresh Nanda

ITA/847/2016HC Delhi28 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…eld to be negligent, for which he cannot be convicted. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., (2003) 9 SCC 700 R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and (2012) 9 SCC 512 CBI Vs. K. Naryan Rao. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Crl.M.P. No.506/2015 decided on 5th CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters Page 61 of 177 February, 2016 titled as Anoop Kumar Sain Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand…

Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/269/2016HC Delhi27 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…eld to be negligent, for which he cannot be convicted. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., (2003) 9 SCC 700 R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and (2012) 9 SCC 512 CBI Vs. K. Naryan Rao. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Crl.M.P. No.506/2015 decided on 5th CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters Page 61 of 177 February, 2016 titled as Anoop Kumar Sain Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand…

Commissioner of Income Tax -XI vs. Amit Malhotra

ITA/396/2016HC Delhi26 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…eld to be negligent, for which he cannot be convicted. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (1996) 10 SCC 193 C. Cenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., (2003) 9 SCC 700 R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and (2012) 9 SCC 512 CBI Vs. K. Naryan Rao. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Crl.M.P. No.506/2015 decided on 5th CRL.A. 134/2016 & conn. matters Page 61 of 177 February, 2016 titled as Anoop Kumar Sain Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand…