MAGANLAL CHHAGANLAL (P) LTD. v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ANOTHER (2 SCC 402)

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. UMW SHER (L) LTD.

ITA/57/2025HC Delhi07 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

…the discretionary power has to be balanced carefully with considerations such as uncalled for hardship to the witnesses and uncalled for delay in trial [Ref: Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.: (2011) 8 SCC 136; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav: (2016) 2 SCC 402; Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat: (2017) 9 SCC 340]. Furthermore, the power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. must Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:13.08.2025 17:07:31 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 57/2025 Page 7 of 9 be exercised for a…

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

ITTA/30/2023HC Telangana04 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

…scope intended by the Legislature. Rules and regulations made by reason of the specific power conferred by the statute to make rules and regulations establish the pattern of conduct to be followed.” 75. In State of Karnataka v. H. Ganesh Kamath, (1983) 2 SCC 402, it has been stated that : (SCC p. 410, para 7) “7. … It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the conferment of rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto.” 76. In Kun…

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

WP/43206/2018HC Karnataka21 Apr 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 96

…It is also urged that 1966 Act is a self contained code. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Supreme Court in 'MAGANLAL CHHAGANLAL (P) LTD. V. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS.', (1974) 2 SCC 402 AND 'GIRNAR TRADERS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.', (2011) 3 SCC 1. It is also contended that issue with regard to applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to the proceeding under 1966 Act is no longer res integra and it has been held that Section 24(2) does not apply to the proceeding under 1966 Act. In this connection, reference h…

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/53718/2017HC Karnataka21 Apr 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 96

…It is also urged that 1966 Act is a self contained code. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Supreme Court in 'MAGANLAL CHHAGANLAL (P) LTD. V. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS.', (1974) 2 SCC 402 AND 'GIRNAR TRADERS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.', (2011) 3 SCC 1. It is also contended that issue with regard to applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to the proceeding under 1966 Act is no longer res integra and it has been held that Section 24(2) does not apply to the proceeding under 1966 Act. In this connection, reference h…

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

WA/1105/2019HC Karnataka24 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 4

…vive. It is also urged that 1966 Act is a self contained code. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Supreme Court in 'MAGANLAL CHHAGANLAL (P) LTD. V. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS.', (1974) 2 SCC 402 AND 'GIRNAR TRADERS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 92 AND ORS.', (2011) 3 SCC 1. It is also contended that issue with regard to applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to the proceeding under 1966 Act is no longer res integra and it has been held that Section 24(2) does not apply to the proceeding under 1966 Act. In this connect…