Does Misquoting Legal Provisions Invalidate Applications?

Commisisoner of Central Excise, Allahabad VS Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. Basti U. P. - 2011 Supreme(All) 3372

In our considered opinion it did not affect the contents of notice as it is well established that mere quoting of a wrong provision would not invalidate the notice, if the proposed action can be justified under any statutory provision. ... Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent assessee submitted that it is not a case of mere wrong quoting of section but there is no question of charging of any interest as the respondent assessee had filed an #HL_START....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune VS Lanjekar Sales Corpn.

I find that in the show cause notice the charges against the respondents have been clearly spelt ou t and accordingly mere mention of wrong provision of law when power exercised is available even though under a different provision is not by itself sufficient to invalidate exercise of that power. ... Collector of Customs, Madras -1994 (72) ELT 377 (Tribunal) held that quoting of wrong section or rule in show cause notice or order not fatal so long as nature of violation correctly brough....

It is a well settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non- mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor.” ... By refuting the submissions that there is an error of jurisdiction, the learned State Counsel has submitted that mere wrong quoting of a provision of law would not make a material difference to an order if the same is otherwise v....

MAHIR UDDIN AHMED vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9442

It is a well settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non- mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor.” ... By refuting the submissions that there is an error of jurisdiction, the learned State Counsel has submitted that mere wrong quoting of a provision of law would not make a material difference to an order if the same is otherwise v....

SStella Silks Ltd. VS Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore

Therefore, merely because wrong sections have been cited in the Show Cause Notice that by itself will not invalidate the confirmation of demands. ... In the light of the following rulings, it has been held that not quoting proper section is a mere irregularity and it is not sufficient to invalidate the proceedings. This has been held so by the Apex Court in the case of CCE Vs. ... CCE - 1995 (9) RLT 817 (CEGAT-B1)=1995 (79) ELT 120 In view of large number of citations on this point, we are not inclined to accept the asse....

DR.S.SHANMUGAM vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48743

Mere quoting of a wrong provision/ wrong service rule itself would not vitiate the order of suspension. Therefore, since the respondents are contemplating the disciplinary proceedings, they have jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner. ... Per contra, Mr.Kumaravel, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that both in contemplation of Disciplinary Proceedings as well as for criminal case, the petitioner has been put into suspension and mere mentioning of a wrong provision of law ....

SUBHASH CHAND VS STATE OF U. P. - 2017 Supreme(All) 924

It is settled proposition of law that when the exercise of power can be justified under any provision of law then non-mention of the said provision in the order cannot invalidate the same. ... It is now well-settled principle of law that non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision of law does not invalidate an order in the event it is found that a power therefor exists.” ... Therefore, the first submission of the learned counsel for the petiti....

Anasuya VS Chinna Ramulu - 2022 Supreme(Telangana) 491

Therefore, mis-quoting and wrong quoting of a provision will not disentitle a party in seeking relief.

Raj Yamaha, A registered Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Partners VS Rajkumar, Proprietor, Raj Yamaha - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 540

It is settled preposition that quoting wrong provision in the application is not a ground for rejecting the entire application. Therefore, the first ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent for dismissing this application is not having any force.

State of Bihar VS Shankar Tiwary - 2014 Supreme(Pat) 222

The mere quoting of a wrong provision would not invalidate the notification. Alternately, the State government had power under Section 35 of the Ferries act to give directions to the Zila Parishad.

Balachander VS Vayyapuri - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4188

Therefore, the Court below should not have dismissed the Application on that ground. It is settled law that an Application cannot be dismissed fro wrong quoting of the provision. Further, the Court below was also not right in dismissing the Application on the ground that the Application was filed under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and it was not filed under Order 16, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the Application is not maintainable.

ALLAHABAD HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY, ALLAHABAD VS STATE OF U. P. - 2011 Supreme(All) 892

Mere wrong quoting of a provision or non-quoting of a provision, cannot invalidate an order which is otherwise in accordance with law and also assigning reasons elaborately. Merely because the Registrar in his order did not refer to Section 24 of the Act and only mentioned that it was exercising powers under Section 12-D of the Act, it cannot be said by the appellants that the order of the Assistant Registrar was without jurisdiction. In the present case we find that the Registrar although mentioned in the original notice that it was one under Section 24 of the Act but in h....