This legal position was enunciated close to a half century ago in Avinash Sharma and has been subsequently reiterated in numerous judgments. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. ) had been set up in United States of America, and India was a member of the same. The State of Punjab (1) that the approver's evidence has to satisfy a double test. Fertilizers were in short supply and, therefore large quantities of such fertilizers had to be imported from abroad.

Nanavati and Company', 464 which used to deal in fertilizers and had bussiness contcts with Russia, offered to supply ammonium sulphate,from Russia to the Government of India. The duty being laid on the Authority which has in this case decided to grant a renewal to specify a period not less than three and not more than five years as the duration of the renewal, it is in our opinion open to this Court to direct the Authority to carry out the duty laid on it by s. Jagdamba Oil Mills) 141.

In General Electric Co. This Supreme Court of India Lawyer has continuously held that once land has vested in the State, the question of re-vesting its possession in the erstwhile landowners is no longer available as an option to the State. In the present case therefore (1) the advertisements affected by the Act do not fall within the words freedom of speech within Art. In the years 1947 and 1948, considerable quantities of ammonium sulphate were obtained through Messrs. The ratio decidendi of a case or the principles and reasons on which it is based is distinct from the relief finally granted or the manner adopted for its disposal.

It is further trite that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can be logically deduced therefrom. As chemical fertilizers were in short supply not only in India but elsewhere also, an international body known as the " International Emergency Food Council " (I. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain (1). 58 (2), when it has granted the renewal. That body used to consider the requirements of different countries Lawyer in Supreme Court of India respect of fertilizers, and used to make allotments.

You have stated Advocates in Supreme Court of India your application form/during the interview that you are willing to transfer the land on ownership/long lease to the Indian Oil corporation Ltd. 540, paragraph 9) There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington v. 3 of the Order applied with equal force to cl.

Renusagar Power Co it was held: (SCC p. British Railways Board(Sub nom British Railways Board v. A judgment, it is trite, is not to be read as a statute. 4(3) with which this Court was concerned in the case of M/ s. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain (1). It must show that he is a reliable witness and that his evidence receives sufficient corroboration, (2) that the evidence of an approver must be confirmed not only as to the circumstances of the crime but also as to the identity of the prisoner.

58 (1) (a) read with s. This argument was rejected and it was observed that the impugned clause was not at all similar to cl. (See also Haryana Financial Corpn. (See Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division v. The jury should have been told (1) in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Sarwan Singh v. (emphasis supplied) 20 The plea before us from the Appellants is that the land should revert to them under Section 11A, since an Award under Section 11 has still not been made despite the passage of almost three decades from the date of the subject Notification.

Towards the end of 1946, a Bombay firm, called 'Messrs. N it is stated: (SCC p. Umrigar on behalf of the appellant urged that the aforesaid direction given by Sessions Judge to the jury was not sufficient. 58(1)(a), which lays down a duty on the Authority which grants a renewal to specify a period which is not less than three years and not more than five years. The ratio decidendi of a judgment is its reasoning which can be deciphered only upon reading the same in its entirety. In Padma Sundara Rao v.

Paragraph 4 of the aforementioned Judgment is worthy of reproduction, and its reading will bear out that what was primarily in the contemplation of this Court was the possession of the land in contradistinction to its title. at the rates acceptable to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Nanavati and Company aforesaid. The appellants contend that the reasons given by this Court in upholding s. Russia was not a member of that Organisation. 19(1)(a); (2) the scope and object of the Act its true nature and character is not interference with the right of freedom of speech (1) [1936] USSC 33; 80 Law Ed.

In dealing with the question what amount of corroboration is required you, gentlemen, must exercise careful discrimination and look at all the surrounding circumstances advocates in Supreme Court order to arrive at a conclusion whether the facts deposed to by the approver Sastipada are borne out by those circum- stances.