Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar

6 SCC 205Reported decision1994#25321 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar

Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) vs. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

C.A. No.-004081-004081 - 2022Supreme Court13 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

…that every contravention cannot entail confiscation. That is why the section uses the word ‘may’. A trader indulging in black marketing or selling adulterated goods etc. should not, in absence of any violation, be treated on a par with 19 (1994) 6 SCC 205 19 technical violations such as failure to put up the price-list etc. or even discrepancies in stock”. 19. In a judgment reported as Union of India v. Agarwal Iron Industries20 it was noticed that it is difficult to appreciate how the denial in the counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue could be treated as an admission by implication to c…

M/S. Tata Chemicals Ltd vs. Commnr. of Customs(Preventive)Jamnagar

C.A. No.-007439-007440 - 2004Supreme Court14 May 2015

…ays examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the Court.” See also Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 48 at 51. N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P. (1994) 6 SCC 205 at 216. 13 Page 14 JUDGMENT 16. The admitted position on record is that the samples drawn were not drawn in accordance with law and were drawn with no regard whatsoever to IS 436. That IS 436 would apply to the facts of the present case is made clear by our judgment reported in Bombay Oil Industries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1995 (…

M/S. Tata Chemicals Ltd vs. Commnr. of Customs(Preventive)Jamnagar

C.A. No.-007439-007440 - 2004Supreme Court14 May 2015

…ays examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the Court.” See also Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 48 at 51. N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P. (1994) 6 SCC 205 at 216. 13 Page 14 JUDGMENT 16. The admitted position on record is that the samples drawn were not drawn in accordance with law and were drawn with no regard whatsoever to IS 436. That IS 436 would apply to the facts of the present case is made clear by our judgment reported in Bombay Oil Industries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1995 (…