Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. DINA MAHABIR RE-ROLLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ted production/ sale. (2) Photocpies are not admissible as evidence under Indian Evidence Act unless the originals are produced for verification / inspection. This legal proposition has recently been propounded by the Apex Court in the case reported in (2011) 4 SCC 240- H. Siddiqui Vs A. Ramalingam .... (3) Page nos. 9 to 51 of the bundles (photocopies given on 23.12.2011) - Year (as presumed by the department - F.Y.20007-08) has not been suffixed after the dates in any pages and, therefore, the whole allegation of unaccounted sale and GP thereon for A.Y.2008-09 is wholly misconceived and contrary to the facts o…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. DINA MAHABIR RE-ROLLERS PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ted production/ sale. (2) Photocpies are not admissible as evidence under Indian Evidence Act unless the originals are produced for verification / inspection. This legal proposition has recently been propounded by the Apex Court in the case reported in (2011) 4 SCC 240- H. Siddiqui Vs A. Ramalingam .... (3) Page nos. 9 to 51 of the bundles (photocopies given on 23.12.2011) - Year (as presumed by the department - F.Y.20007-08) has not been suffixed after the dates in any pages and, therefore, the whole allegation of unaccounted sale and GP thereon for A.Y.2008-09 is wholly misconceived and contrary to the facts o…

SHRI H MUNIREDDY vs. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B.Veerappa Writ Petition No.18157/2013 (Gm-Res)

…ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 240 at para No.8 has held as under; “8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India, is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi- judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind…

SMT. SHARADA V vs. SMT. KAMALA

Bench: The Hon' Ble Mrs Justice B.V.Nagarathna

…ce it in reasonable time. The Court is obliged to examine the probative value of documents produced in the Court or their contents and decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence (Vide H.Siddiqui v. A.Ramalingam –(2011) 4 SCC 240 and Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal v. M.S.S.Food Products – (2012) 2 SCC 196). However, the secondary evidence of an ordinary document is admissible only and only when the party desirous of admitting it has proved before the Court that it was not in his possession or control of it and further, that he has done what could be done to procure t…