Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India

1 SCC 572Reported decision1993#5394 most cited

What is Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India authority for?

The requirement to explain each day's delay in filing an appeal must be interpreted pragmatically and with common sense, not pedantically. Refusing to condone delay can lead to a grave miscarriage of justice.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India · 1 SCC 572 · delay in filing appeal · condonation of delay · Section 249(3) · miscarriage of justice · rational commonsense pragmatic manner · limitation period · ITAT appeal delay · Supreme Court

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 144Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 249(3)section 271aac(1)share capital and share premiumsection 271aacsection 271aasection 271adelay in filing appealsection 249addition under section 68section 270

Judgments citing Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India

VINAY KUMAR SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 5(2)5, GAUTAM BUDHA NAGAR

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6684/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Vinay Kumar Singh, Income Tax Officer, D-34, Sector-41, Noida, Vs. Ward 5(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh 201301, India. Gautam Budh Nagar, Pan No.Afpps6516P Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 5

…ITA Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम VINAY KUMAR SINGH, INCOME TAX OFFICER, D-34, Sector-41, Noida, Vs. Ward 5(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh 201301, INDIA. Gautam Budh Nagar, PAN No.AFPPS6516P Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 03.03.2026 11.03.2026 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement o…

VINAY KUMAR SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 5(2)(5), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6683/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Vinay Kumar Singh, Income Tax Officer, D-34, Sector-41, Noida, Vs. Ward 5(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh 201301, India. Gautam Budh Nagar, Pan No.Afpps6516P Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 5

…ITA Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.6683 & 6684/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम VINAY KUMAR SINGH, INCOME TAX OFFICER, D-34, Sector-41, Noida, Vs. Ward 5(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh 201301, INDIA. Gautam Budh Nagar, PAN No.AFPPS6516P Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 03.03.2026 11.03.2026 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement o…

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 1457/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1419, 1420, 1457/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 M/s. August Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Mellora, Mezzamine Floor, RBD Icon Building, Next to ACM Ballet, Doddanekundi Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 037, Karnataka. PAN: AANCA 2129 G Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Miraj Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025 ORDER Per Laxm…

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 1420/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1419, 1420, 1457/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 M/s. August Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Mellora, Mezzamine Floor, RBD Icon Building, Next to ACM Ballet, Doddanekundi Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 037, Karnataka. PAN: AANCA 2129 G Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Miraj Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025 ORDER Per Laxm…

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 1419/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Miraj Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1419, 1420, 1457/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 M/s. August Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Mellora, Mezzamine Floor, RBD Icon Building, Next to ACM Ballet, Doddanekundi Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 037, Karnataka. PAN: AANCA 2129 G APPELLANT Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Bengaluru. RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Miraj Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.12.2025 ORDER Per Lax…

SHREE KARNI MATA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1214/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

…s in grave miscarriage of justice; it would be a ground to condone the delay. (i) In State of Haryana v. Chandramani AIR 1996 SC 1623, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered large number of its earlier judgments including Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCC 572, Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India (1993) Suppl. (1) SCC 487, Warlu v. Gangotribai [1995] Suppl. (1) SCC 37, Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi AIR 1979 SC 1666, Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan AIR 1970 SC 1953, and held that expression 'each day's delay must be…

SHREE KARNI MATA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIION),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1213/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 5Section 80G

…s in grave miscarriage of justice; it would be a ground to condone the delay. (i) In State of Haryana v. Chandramani AIR 1996 SC 1623, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered large number of its earlier judgments including Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCC 572, Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India (1993) Suppl. (1) SCC 487, Warlu v. Gangotribai [1995] Suppl. (1) SCC 37, Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi AIR 1979 SC 1666, Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan AIR 1970 SC 1953, and held that expression 'each day's delay must be…

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(1) NOW I.T.O., WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

…s in grave miscarriage of justice; it would be a ground to condone the delay. (i) In State of Haryana v. Chandramani AIR 1996 SC 1623, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered large number of its earlier judgments including Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCC 572, Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India [1993] Suppl. (1) SCC 487, Warlu v. Gangotribai [1995] Suppl. (1) SCC 37, Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi AIR 1979 SC 1666, Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan AIR 1970 SC 1953, and held that expression 'each day's delay must be…

BLUEBELL TRADECOM LLP (SUCCESSOR OF BLUEBELL TRADECOM PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), KOLKATA CURRENTLY ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: the Honorable ITAT and accordingly the appeal was prepared.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

…s in grave miscarriage of justice; it would be a ground to condone the delay. (i) In State of Haryana v. Chandramani AIR 1996 SC 1623, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered large number of its earlier judgments including Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCC 572, Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India [1993] Suppl. (1) SCC 487, Warlu v. Gangotribai [1995] Suppl. (1) SCC 37, Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi AIR 1979 SC 1666, Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan AIR 1970 SC 1953, and held that expression 'each day's delay must be…

BISWAJIT ROY,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , JALPAIGURI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 866/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Him, In Limine, By Not Condoning A Delay Of 436 Days Before Him.

Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

…der such facts and circumstances, it is clear that the delay occurred on account of callous and lackadaisical approach on the part of the assessee in not filing the appeal within the stipulated time period. 2.19 In Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India [(1993) 1 SCC 572), it was held that it is not at all a fit case where in the anxiety to render justice to a party so that a just cause is not defeated, a pragmatic view should be taken by the court in considering sufficing cause for condonation of the delay under Section 5. It was held that when the party has come with a false plea to get rid of the bar of limitati…

DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & SONS HUF,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 647/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 54F

…ve miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. vi. In State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani AIR 1996 SC 1623, the Supreme Court of India considered a large number of its earlier judgments including Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCC 572; Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India [1993] Suppl. (1) SCC 487; Warlu v. Gangotribai [1995] Suppl. (1) SCC 37; Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361; Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi [1979] 118 ITR 507, Mata Din v. A. Narayanan AIR 1970 SC 1953, and held that the expression 'each day's delay must be explained', does not m…

GIELLE INVESTMENTS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD- 6(2), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1151/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1151 /Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gielle Investments Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(2), C/o Pawan Sanganeria Vs Kolkata Chartered Accountant Parwati Niwas 912, Lake Town Block-A, Near H.P. Gas Co. Kolkata – 700089 [PAN: AABCG7762P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07/02/202…

AVISHI PROJECTS LLP ,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE. , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1249/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 5

…s in grave miscarriage of justice; it would be a ground to condone the delay. (i) In State of Haryana v. Chandramani AIR 1996 SC 1623, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered large number of its earlier judgments including Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCC 572, Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India [1993] Suppl. (1) SCC 487, Warlu v. Gangotribai [1995] Suppl (1) SCC 37, Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Nirmala Devi AIR 1979 SC 1666, Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan AIR 1970 SC 1953, and held that expression 'each day's delay must be e…

RITU DUGGAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1122/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 221(1)Section 250Section 5

…s in grave miscarriage of justice; it would be a ground to condone the delay. (i) In State of Haryana v. Chandramani AIR 1996 SC 1623, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered large number of its earlier judgments including Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India [1993] 1 SCC 572, Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India [1993] Suppl. (1) SCC 487, Warlu v. Gangotribai [1995] Suppl (1) SCC 37, Ramlal, I.T.A. No. 1122/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 RITU DUGGAL 5 Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Nirmala Devi AIR 1979 SC 1666, Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan AIR 1…

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-008945-008945 - 2019Supreme Court22 Nov 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 115QSection 143(2)Section 77A

…(1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131 5 (2003) 2 SCC 107 6 (2005) 6 SCC 499 7 AIR 1954 SC 207 8 AIR 1955 SC 425 9 AIR 1957 SC 882 10AIR 1966 SC 1089 11 AIR 1959 SC 422 12 AIR 1965 SC 1321 : (1965) 2 SCR 653 13 (1984) 2 SCC 436 : 1984 SCC (Tax) 133 14 (1988) 1 SCC 572 15 (1995) 5 SCC 75 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1955) 31 ATC 110 16 (2000) 6 SCC 293 Civil Appeal No. 8945 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.20728 of 2019 Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 25 Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan17, L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of A.P.18, Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Ma…

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI KOUNDINYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

ITTA/179/2019HC Andhra Pradesh29 Oct 2019

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

…ses 180 96. 2021 (1) SCJ 131 97. (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 42 98. (1979) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409 99. (1985) 4 Supreme Court Cases 369 100. (1993) 1 Supreme Court Cases 71 101. (1994) 5 SCC 509 102. (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 274 103. (1998) 1 SCC 572 104. (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 193 105. (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 186 106. (2015) 14 SCC 327 107. (2016) 11 SCC 31 108. (2019) 1 SCC 1 CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch 5 109. (2016) 11 SCC 31 110. (1990) 1 SCC 328 111. (1972) 2 SCC 788 112. (1994) Supp (3) SCC 340 113. (2021) 7 SCC 413 114. (20…

SRI. BHEEMAPPA GURAPPA HEBBALLI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Appeal is dismissed as

WA/100186/2018HC Karnataka06 Sept 2018

Bench: HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR,G.NARENDAR

Section 4Section 49Section 95

…decision has not been adopted. (See: N.T. Veluswami Thevar vs. G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422; Municipal Council, Khurai vs. Kamal Kumar, (1965) 2 SCR 653; Siliguri Municipality vs. Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436; S.T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572; Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75; Kerala SEB vs. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695; L.L. Sudhakar Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2001) 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SC…

JAYAMUTHU vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION FOR COOPERATION

In the result, we dismiss all the writ

WA/3482/2015HC Karnataka21 Apr 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),B.V.NAGARATHNA

Section 4

…equate relief could be granted in an Election Petition. In other words, this Court will not and should not entertain Writ Petition lightly, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Muthusamy.” i.e. S.T.Muthusami vs. K.Natarajan and Others, [(1988) 1 SCC 572] cited above. -: 45 :- 33. The observation in L.Ramakrishnappa’s case have been considered by the Full Bench of this court in Nanjundaswamy vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, [ILR 1992 KAR 972] and it has been categorically held that the remedy of an Election Petition is the remedy that is normally available i…

HAROHALLI MILK PRODUCERS vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

In the result, we dismiss all the writ

WA/4515/2015HC Karnataka21 Apr 2017

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),B.V.NAGARATHNA

Section 4

…equate relief could be granted in an Election Petition. In other words, this Court will not and should not entertain Writ Petition lightly, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Muthusamy.” i.e. S.T.Muthusami vs. K.Natarajan and Others, [(1988) 1 SCC 572] cited above. -: 45 :- 33. The observation in L.Ramakrishnappa’s case have been considered by the Full Bench of this court in Nanjundaswamy vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, [ILR 1992 KAR 972] and it has been categorically held that the remedy of an Election Petition is the remedy that is normally available i…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

ITA/224/2017HC Delhi10 Apr 2017

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

Section 10A(2)(c)

…il Digitally Signed By:CHARU CHAUDHARY Signing Date:29.02.2024 16:08:49 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 224/2017 Page 108 of 118 Mills [(1998) 1 SCC 572] and it was further held that the Government could change its industrial policy if the situation so warranted and merely because the resolution was announced for a particular period, it did not mean that the Government could not amend and change the policy under any circumstances. If the party claiming application of the doctrine acted on the…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India (1 SCC 572) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax