Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 344 (3.51 seconds)
Documents citing Charan Lal Sahu Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 December, 1989

Chaman Lal Verma vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 November, 2014

9. It is a settle law that one must approach the court with clean hands. During the course of the arguments, counsel for the defendants no.2 and 3 pleaded that the plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order dated 2/5 Chaman Lal Verma vs. Union of India 22.05.2014 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as the advance copy of the same was supplied to him. But, he is not aware about the fate of the same. In reply, counsel for the plaintiff admitted that the plaintiff filed the appeal before the Registry, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in July, 2014, but did not pursue the same and it remained at that level only. The plaintiff has not disclosed the said material fact in the present application. This fact also belies the plea of the plaintiff that he could not file the application in time due to his illness as well as illness of his wife. As such, the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alaka Saraogi vs Anil Nahata & Ors on 20 July, 2009

If the Court has to declare a particular action as representative it has to see whether there is community of interest. Community of interest does not mean same cause of action. By community of interest it is meant that the interests of the plaintiffs or the defendants are common and inseparable and that there is no distinguishing feature in the case of any of the plaintiffs or any of the defendants as the case may be. The Supreme Court has recognised such principle in the case of Charan Lal Sahu - Vs. - Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 and Union Carbide Corporation - Vs - Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248. In this case, the disputes which were sought to be resolved by the arbitrator was not a common dispute involving parties to the arbitration agreement in question. Here each and every party to the agreement for sale of shares of the said company had an individual interest. Each and every member of the group representing the Nahatas or the Saraogi in the arbitration proceeding had distinct individual interests. By virtue of the arbitration agreement dispute from those individual interests and were being resolved by the arbitrator. Hence, the proceding before the arbitrator was not representative. It has been specifically recited in the body of the compromise that the appellant's group had authorised the appellant No. 17 to enter into the settlement on their behalf. Up to the stage of settlement the respondent No. 17, Mohanlal Saraogi had prosecuted the arbitration on behalf of the appellant's group and at no point of time was there any denial of his authority.
Calcutta High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - I P Mukerji - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

This is what is stated in the financial bid. Therefore, Mr B.R. Nair could not dissociate himself from the decision-making process. It is under these circumstances the High Court rightly applied the doctrine of necessity. This Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India16 dealt with this doctrine which is stated as follows : (SCC p. 694, para 105) "The question whether there is scope for the Union of India being responsible or liable as joint tort-feasor is a difficult and different question. But even assuming that it was possible that the Central Government might be liable in a case of this nature, the learned Attorney 701 General was right in contending that it was only proper that the Central Government should be able and authorised to represent the victims. In such a situation, there will be no scope of the violation of the principles of natural justice. The doctrine of necessity would be applicable in a situation of this nature. The doctrine has been elaborated, in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., p. 89, paragraph 73, where it was reiterated that even if all the members of the Tribunal competent to determine a matter were subject to disqualification, they might be authorised and obliged to hear that matter by virtue of the operation of the common law doctrine of necessity. An adjudicator who is subject to disqualification on the ground of bias or interest in the matter which he has to decide may in certain circumstances be required to adjudicate if there is no other person who is competent or authorised to be adjudicator or if a quorum cannot be formed without him or if no other competent tribunal can be constituted."
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

Santosh Kumar Roy And Others Etc. vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 17 February, 1997

In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India while considering the case for grant of compensation in terms of Bhopal das Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, the Apex Court, inter alia, held that the principles of natural justice have no application as the Central Government was not judging any claim but was fighting and advancing the claims of the victims. In Estate Manager, Estate Directorate Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary, Housing Departmentv. Dilip Kumar Dey being P.M.A.T. No. 3882 of 1995 reported in 1996 (2) Cal HN 533 this Court has held that were the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act applies, principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with.
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - S B Sinha - Full Document

The Indian Science Congress ... vs The Union Of India & Ors on 2 April, 2025

Facts of this case and provisions of Section 8 and Section 9 of the said Act of 1961 since found to be relevant by this court in altering Rules & Regulations and Bye-Laws of said association, doctrine of necessity as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (1990) 1 SCC 613 (Charan Lal 35 Sahu vs. Union of India) does not come in aid of the respondent authorities.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next