Anonymous
06 April 2011 at 19:56
Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.
actually not understood the meaning of (involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.)
as how to know that the person is below poverty line becasue if the person is below poverty line he is exempt form paying the fees ?
Anonymous
06 April 2011 at 14:19
Dear Sir
As per below links appears that as per supreme court no Excise duty applicable on Ayurvedic Medicines
1) parliamentoindia.nic.in
2) timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articles/ msid-1447233
3)www.business-standard.com/india/news/no-dutyayurvedic-medicine
Please reply me so that we can follow as per rules.
thanking you
Anonymous
06 April 2011 at 14:12
Hello everyone....
i wanted some brief information regarding the case STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. DR. PRAFULLA K.DESAI (2003) 4 SCC 601.
And i also wanted that how can i relate the above mentioned case with Article 21. of the Constitution Of India.
Anonymous
06 April 2011 at 14:06
In writ petition if the respondent has mentioend that there was a complaint made to infomration commission but failed to mention that outcome of the enquiry conducted by the informaiton commission will that be held against the respondent in the appeal.
The writ petition was filed by public authority to quash the order of information commission however the respondent/ RTI applicant has also got a findings against the public authorities in another order passed prior to this impugned order of the information commission.
The writ petition was allowed without considering the earlier order and respondent prefers an appeal against this order.
Please clarify. Thanks
Anonymous
05 April 2011 at 22:48
Artilce 132 give the power to file a case in SC but if the HC don't give the certifaiacte than SLP should be manitain or Writ petition should be maintain in any case ? also why do we write SLP. & not any other words.
Which one more useful SLP or Writ petition in any cirumstances &in any case.
Anonymous
05 April 2011 at 20:34
The Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter.
Query : what does the exact meaning of discretionary jurisdiction says because i am shocked that i the judment give by the SC by this discretionary jurisdiction than it cannot be applied in doctrine of merger ? pls tell whether i am right or wrong ? also how to know form the case law context that the judgment of the SC is form the discretionary jurisdiction ? pls
B.B.R.Goud.
05 April 2011 at 20:15
if an employee enters into agreement in the matter of pay scales, does he forego his fundamental rights under Art 13 of Constitution of India, 1950.
B.B.R.Goud.
05 April 2011 at 20:13
if the manegement, of any organisation registered under the registration of societies act in india, is not paying the salaries in time, who is the competent person in general?
Anonymous
05 April 2011 at 19:58
when court based its decision on basis of concession, the decision not a binding precedent AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1273 "Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann"
Query : what do u mean by on basis of concession or can anybody give me the context of the case law .
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
case nothwithstanding.
Nothwithstanding anything contained in other provision of the act & subject to other provision & Also more opinion on non - obstante clause.
the mentioned points have been explaine by the SC in detail in the below mentioned case law . but i have tried to find under the indiankoon & other citation available sites & not able to have the hole context of it can anybody provide me the hole context of it
Supreme Court in South India Corp Ltd vs. Secretary, Board Of Revenue (1964) 15 STC 74.