Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology

5 SCC 111Reported decision2002#1228 most cited

What is Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology authority for?

The legal form or ostensible autonomy of an entity does not prevent it from being classified as 'State' or 'authority' under Article 12 if it functions as an instrumentality of the Government, thereby attracting constitutional accountability under Part III.

93

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology · Article 12 · definition of State · instrumentality of government · Section 2(15) · Section 10(23C) · Section 11 · charitable exemption · public utility · constitutional accountability

Sections most often in play

Section 10(46)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 289

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 10(23c)(iv)section 36(1)(v)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)mlisection 10(23c)put to usesection 2(15)section 40a(3)

Judgments citing Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

ITA 936/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)

…tricted its analysis to commercial character and operational autonomy. The present case, however, squarely attracts the principles of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981 1 SCC 722) and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002 5 SCC 111). CeG satisfies every criterion laid down in those landmark cases. Judgments are enclosed as ANNEXURE-A & ‘B’. 4. Judicial hierarchy: The judgments relied upon by the CIT(A) were delivered by smaller Benches — APSRTC (5 Judges) and Adityapur (2 Judges). Neither of them examined Article 12. Conversely, Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Ch…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2 vs. M/S CELEBI DELHI CARGO MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT. LTD.

ITA/619/2019HC Delhi30 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 263Section 80I

…ITA 619/2019 Page 1 of 31 $~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.01.2025 + ITA 619/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC, Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC, Mr. Anmol Jagga & Mr. Prathviraj Day, Advs. versus M/S CELEBI DELHI CARGO MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Himanshu Aggarwal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR.…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1116/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…the meaning of the expression "authority" in Article 12. 2.52 Similar reliance is also placed on the decision of the seven judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology reported in (2002) 5 SCC 111: ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 23 of 60 23. From this perspective, the logical sequitur is that it really does not matter what guise the State adopts for this purpose, whether by a Corporation established by statute or incorporated under a law such as the Companies Act or formed under…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1115/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…the meaning of the expression "authority" in Article 12. 2.52 Similar reliance is also placed on the decision of the seven judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology reported in (2002) 5 SCC 111: ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 23 of 60 23. From this perspective, the logical sequitur is that it really does not matter what guise the State adopts for this purpose, whether by a Corporation established by statute or incorporated under a law such as the Companies Act or formed under…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1114/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…the meaning of the expression "authority" in Article 12. 2.52 Similar reliance is also placed on the decision of the seven judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology reported in (2002) 5 SCC 111: ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 23 of 60 23. From this perspective, the logical sequitur is that it really does not matter what guise the State adopts for this purpose, whether by a Corporation established by statute or incorporated under a law such as the Companies Act or formed under…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…the meaning of the expression "authority" in Article 12. 2.52 Similar reliance is also placed on the decision of the seven judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology reported in (2002) 5 SCC 111: ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 23 of 60 23. From this perspective, the logical sequitur is that it really does not matter what guise the State adopts for this purpose, whether by a Corporation established by statute or incorporated under a law such as the Companies Act or formed under…

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…the meaning of the expression "authority" in Article 12. 2.52 Similar reliance is also placed on the decision of the seven judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology reported in (2002) 5 SCC 111: ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 23 of 60 23. From this perspective, the logical sequitur is that it really does not matter what guise the State adopts for this purpose, whether by a Corporation established by statute or incorporated under a law such as the Companies Act or formed under…

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SPECIAL RANGE - 1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1048/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…the meaning of the expression "authority" in Article 12. 2.52 Similar reliance is also placed on the decision of the seven judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology reported in (2002) 5 SCC 111: ITA Nos.1048 & 1112 to 1116/Bang/2019 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Page 23 of 60 23. From this perspective, the logical sequitur is that it really does not matter what guise the State adopts for this purpose, whether by a Corporation established by statute or incorporated under a law such as the Companies Act or formed under…

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not a statutory body because it is not created by the statute. It is a body created in accordance with the provisions of the statute. 2.23 In Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111 the question that arose before the Honourable Constitution Bench was whether CSIR falls under the expression ‘State’ as defined under Article 12. The Court observed the facts as under: (a) CSIR was set up by the Department of Commerce, Government of India with the broad objective of promoting industrial growth in this Country; (b) The Memorandum of…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not a statutory body because it is not created by the statute. It is a body created in accordance with the provisions of the statute. 2.23 In Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111 the question that arose before the Honourable Constitution Bench was whether CSIR falls under the expression ‘State’ as defined under Article 12. The Court observed the facts as under: (a) CSIR was set up by the Department of Commerce, Government of India with the broad objective of promoting industrial growth in this Country; (b) The Memorandum of…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not a statutory body because it is not created by the statute. It is a body created in accordance with the provisions of the statute. 2.23 In Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111 the question that arose before the Honourable Constitution Bench was whether CSIR falls under the expression ‘State’ as defined under Article 12. The Court observed the facts as under: (a) CSIR was set up by the Department of Commerce, Government of India with the broad objective of promoting industrial growth in this Country; (b) The Memorandum of…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not a statutory body because it is not created by the statute. It is a body created in accordance with the provisions of the statute. 2.23 In Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111 the question that arose before the Honourable Constitution Bench was whether CSIR falls under the expression ‘State’ as defined under Article 12. The Court observed the facts as under: (a) CSIR was set up by the Department of Commerce, Government of India with the broad objective of promoting industrial growth in this Country; (b) The Memorandum of…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not a statutory body because it is not created by the statute. It is a body created in accordance with the provisions of the statute. 2.23 In Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111 the question that arose before the Honourable Constitution Bench was whether CSIR falls under the expression ‘State’ as defined under Article 12. The Court observed the facts as under: (a) CSIR was set up by the Department of Commerce, Government of India with the broad objective of promoting industrial growth in this Country; (b) The Memorandum of…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not a statutory body because it is not created by the statute. It is a body created in accordance with the provisions of the statute. 2.23 In Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111 the question that arose before the Honourable Constitution Bench was whether CSIR falls under the expression ‘State’ as defined under Article 12. The Court observed the facts as under: (a) CSIR was set up by the Department of Commerce, Government of India with the broad objective of promoting industrial growth in this Country; (b) The Memorandum of…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not a statutory body because it is not created by the statute. It is a body created in accordance with the provisions of the statute. 2.23 In Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111 the question that arose before the Honourable Constitution Bench was whether CSIR falls under the expression ‘State’ as defined under Article 12. The Court observed the facts as under: (a) CSIR was set up by the Department of Commerce, Government of India with the broad objective of promoting industrial growth in this Country; (b) The Memorandum of…

MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5701/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akkhade
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…, Ld. Special Counsel has placed reliance on various other case laws viz. SMN Chettiar Vs. CIT (AIR 1966 Mad 103], The Trustees of the Tribune (66 SCC 241), Som Prakash Reki (1 SCC 449), Rajasthan State Electricity (AIR 1967 SC 1857) and Pradeep Kumar Biswas (5 SCC 111) and Arnold Rodricks (AIR 1966 SC 1788). In our view these decisions have no bearing on the issue that arises on the facts of the present case. Insofar as the decision in the case of Apar Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. UOI (1986) 1 Bom CR 196 (FB) is concerned, we agree with the submission of Mr. Dastur that the decision is wholly distinguishable on facts in…

CENTRAL FOOD TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER (TDS)

In the result, appeal is disposed of

ITA/486/2014HC Karnataka14 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 192Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.486 OF 2014 BETWEEN: CENTRAL FOOD TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE KRS ROAD, MYSORE-570020 REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SMT. MALLIKA P. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS D/O SRI V. RAJAGOPAL. ... APPELLANT (BY MR. S. PARTHASARATHI, SR. COUNSEL A/W MS. JINITA CHATARJEE, ADV.,) AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) 'SHILPASHREE' NO.55/1, OPP. STERLING TALKIES VISHWESHWARANAGAR MYSORE-570008. ... RESPONDENT (BY…

MR DYANI ANTONY PAUL vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/38642/2016HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…A AND OTHERS. vi) (1996) 5 SCC 1: BIJAYA KUMAR AGARWALA vs. STATE OF ORISSA. vii) (1986) 4 SCC 746: STATE OF KERALA vs. MATHAI VERGHESE AND OTHERS. viii) (2013) 4 SCC 540: TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK AND OTHERS vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS. ix) (2013) 5 SCC 111: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS vs. CH. GANDHI. x) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. xi) (2000) 2 SCC 536: KOLHAPUR CANESUGAR WORKS LTD AND ANOTHER vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. xii) (2016) 1 HCC (DEL) 265: MAHANIVESH OILS AND FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. 81 xiii) CRL.O.P.N…

DESARAJU VENUGOPAL vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

WP/8261/2017HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…A AND OTHERS. vi) (1996) 5 SCC 1: BIJAYA KUMAR AGARWALA vs. STATE OF ORISSA. vii) (1986) 4 SCC 746: STATE OF KERALA vs. MATHAI VERGHESE AND OTHERS. viii) (2013) 4 SCC 540: TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK AND OTHERS vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS. ix) (2013) 5 SCC 111: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS vs. CH. GANDHI. x) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. xi) (2000) 2 SCC 536: KOLHAPUR CANESUGAR WORKS LTD AND ANOTHER vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. xii) (2016) 1 HCC (DEL) 265: MAHANIVESH OILS AND FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. 81 xiii) CRL.O.P.N…

SRI S THIMMARAJU vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

WP/42157/2016HC Karnataka11 Dec 2020

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

…A AND OTHERS. vi) (1996) 5 SCC 1: BIJAYA KUMAR AGARWALA vs. STATE OF ORISSA. vii) (1986) 4 SCC 746: STATE OF KERALA vs. MATHAI VERGHESE AND OTHERS. viii) (2013) 4 SCC 540: TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK AND OTHERS vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS. ix) (2013) 5 SCC 111: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS vs. CH. GANDHI. x) (2014) 3 SCC 151: VARINDER SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER. xi) (2000) 2 SCC 536: KOLHAPUR CANESUGAR WORKS LTD AND ANOTHER vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. xii) (2016) 1 HCC (DEL) 265: MAHANIVESH OILS AND FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. 81 xiii) CRL.O.P.N…

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5