Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration

2 SCR 585Reported decision1995#17134 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2004 to 2018.

Judgments citing Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration

Sanjay Dalmia vs. Principal Commissioner of

ITA/345/2018HC Delhi21 Mar 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

…d demands consideration is the reasons for exclusion of Sh. Ajay Khurania in the second Will even though he had been given an equal share along with his three brothers in the first Will. 133. In P.P.K Gopalan Nambiar vs. P.P.K Balkrishan Nambiar & Ors. (1995) 2 SCR 585 the Apex Court observed that it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to remove all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane and valid suspicious circumstances and not the fantasy of a doubting mind. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances, the Court has to give effect to the Will even if the Will migh…

CIT vs. Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd

ITA/45/2012HC Delhi16 Feb 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…CS(OS) 2186/2011 & TEST.CAS. 45/2012 Page 1 of 43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Reserved on: April 08, 2019 Pronounced on : April 29, 2019 CS(OS)2186/2011 & I.As.14251/2011, 4281/2012, 20377/2012, 20378/2012, 20379/2012, 1394/2013, 3395/2016, 5156/2018, 5157/2018, 5453/2018, 6035/2018, 6036/2018, 6523/2018 USHA JAIN & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Adv. versus SNEHALATA KUMUDINI BARNABAS ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj and Ms. Sagrik…

Commnr. of Customs(Preventive) vs. M/S. Aafloat Textiles (I) P.Ltd.&Ors

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002447-002447 - 2007Supreme Court16 Feb 2009

Bench: The Cestat Was To The Order Of Commissioner Of Customs Who Confirmed The Duty Demand Of

Section 111Section 114ASection 28Section 28(1)Section 28A

…l loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied. (See Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration (1963 Supp. 2 SCR 585) and Indian Bank v. Satyam Febres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996 (5) SCC 550). 10. A “fraud” is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (See S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu v. Jag…

Commnr. of Customs, Kandla vs. M/S. Essar Oil Ltd

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

C.A. No.-004299-004305 - 2003Supreme Court07 Oct 2004
For Respondent: M/s Essar Oil Limited & Ors
Section 59(2)

…lways call loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied. (See Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration (1963 Supp. 2 SCR 585) and Indian Bank v. Satyam Febres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996 (5) SCC 550). A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (See S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu v. Jaganna…

Commnr. of Customs, Kandla vs. M/S. Essar Oil Ltd

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs

C.A. No.-004299-004305 - 2003Supreme Court07 Oct 2004
For Respondent: M/s Essar Oil Limited & Ors
Section 59(2)

…lways call loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied. (See Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration (1963 Supp. 2 SCR 585) and Indian Bank v. Satyam Febres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996 (5) SCC 550). A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (See S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu v. Jaganna…

Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration (2 SCR 585) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax