Govind v. State of M.P. and Ano

2 SCC 148Reported decision1975#21838 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2003 to 2019.

Judgments citing Govind v. State of M.P. and Ano

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-C2 vs. RAJEEV BAHL

ITA/40/2019HC Delhi12 Sept 2019

Bench: The Family Court By Way Of A Divorce Petition Bearing Hma No. 609/2012, The Relevant Details Of Which Are Referred To Hereinafter. 3. The Petitioner/Wife Is The Respondent In The Aforesaid Divorce Petition Which Was Filed On 26.09.2012 By The Respondent/Husband Seeking

Section 13(1)(ia)

…page 26 of 46 On the need to place right to privacy in the context of other rights and values: “509. Based upon the prevalent thinking of the US Supreme Court, a seminal judgment was delivered by Mathew, J. in Gobind [Gobind v. State of M.P., (1975) 2 SCC 148 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 468]. This judgment dealt with the M.P. Police Regulations, similar to the Police Regulations contained in Kharak Singh [Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 329 : (1964) 1 SCR 332]. After setting out the majority and minority opinions in the said judgment, Mathew, J. went on to discuss the US Sup…

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/30917/2016HC Karnataka10 Nov 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

…for certain specified purposes, the State can pierce the veil of privacy without violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In order to buttress this plea, the learned counsels have relied on the cases of Govind v. State of M.P. and Ano. [ (1975) 2 SCC 148], Mr. X v. Hospital Z [(1998) 8 SCC 296], Sharada v. Dharampal [ (2003) 4 SCC 493], K.J. Doraiswamy v. Assistant General Manager, SBI [ (2006) 5 CTC 829], and United States v. Leroy Carlton Knotts [460 U.S. 276]. 169 149. The learned counsel have also submitted that there is nothing unusual about the Aggregator Rul…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

ITA/284/2015HC Delhi06 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 375

…and interact with the warring couple, and to make every possible effort to save, rather than sever, the marital bond. 117. Of marriage, the Supreme Court spoke thus, in Mr X v. Hospital Z81: 81 (1998) 8 SCC 296 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:11.05.2022 18:14:04 Signature valid This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001825 WP (C) No 284/2015 & connected matters Page 91 of 200 “Marriage is the sacred union, legally permissible, of two healthy bodies of opposite se…

M/S. AMCO BATTERIES LTD., BANGALORE vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

In the result, Section 33-B of the Amended Act is held to be

C.A. No.-005941-005942 - 1999Supreme Court26 Feb 2003

For Respondent: Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore

Section 3

…1 since personal liberty is of widest amplitude and categorized them (in para 30) thus: "(1) The right to go abroad. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam A.P.O., New Delhi [(1967) 3 SCR 525] (2) The right to privacy. Gobind v. State of M.P. [(1975) 2 SCC 148]. In this case reliance was placed on the American decision in Griswold v. Connecticut [381 US 479, 510]. (3) The right against solitary confinement. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [(1978) 4 SCC 494, 545]. (4) The right against bar fetters. Charles Sobraj v. Supdt. Central Jail [(1978) 4 SCC 104]. (5) The right to legal aid. M.H…