Search results for ‘SC 1961

INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961

INDEX Income-tax Act, 1961-2017 INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [43 OF 1961] [AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2018] An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to income-tax and super-tax BE it enacted […]

Sardar Sambhaji Angre vs H.H. Jyitiraditya M. Scindia And Ors [BHC] – 18/6/2019

In case of the partition suit, all the parties are to be treated as plaintiffs. Even if any preliminary decree would have been passed by this court in this suit based on the said affidavit dated 15th October, 1985 under Order 20 Rule 18 read with sections 151 to 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, court has ample power to pass more than one preliminary decree or to modify the preliminary decree prior to passing of the final decree having regard to change of supervening  circumstances.

STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAMA DIYA [All SC 1990 APRIL]

According to Section 433(A) that a prisoner who has been sentenced to death and whose death sentence has been commuted into one of imprisonment for life and persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law should undergo actual imprisonment of 14 years in Jail. We are referring to Section 433(A) in this judgment only for a limited purpose of showing that after the introduction of this section, the life convicts falling within the purview of Section 433(A) has to undergo the mandatory minimum 14 years of actual imprisonment. It may be mentioned at this juncture that no one has got a vested right to claim premature release on the ground that he has suffered the minimum actual imprisonment as prescribed under Section 433(A) because a sentence of ‘imprisonment for life’ is incarceration until death, that is, for the remaining period of convicted prison’s actual life

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. C.N. SAHASRANAMAN AND ORS [ALL SC 1986 APRIL]

The main question which needs determination is whether part of the scheme mentioned before introduced by the Reserve Bank of India is violative of guarantee of equality before law and of equal opportunity in public employment as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the point arose at the instance of three petitioners who were Grade II working at Nagpur branch of Reserve Bank ever since their employment which commenced somewhere between 1960 to 1965.