Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974

Empire Industries Ltd. vs Wigan And Leigh College (India) Ltd. on 28 February, 2005

12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that liability of refund of license fee upon elapsing of the agreement is absolute and unconditional and no lien can be put on the same. Merely by raising frivolous disputes, legitimate claim of the petitioner cannot be defeated. He further submitted that the claim of damages alleged by the company is to be proved in consonance with Section 73 of the Contract Act and referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, reported as . It was argued that the company had no right or authority to appropriate the amounts of the pending bills of the contractor in or towards satisfaction of its claims for damages.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Y.N.P. Sinha vs Union Of India And Ors. on 7 March, 2000

15. On the basis of the averments made in the petition, rejoinder affidavits and additional affidavits filed by the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the CVC in not giving vigilance clearance to the petitioner was improper and arbitrary. His basic submission was that as on 1997, when his case was sent to CVC for clearance there was nothing against him. On the basis material produced before CVC at that time, CVC could not have withheld the clearance. According to him, that should be treated as cut-off date for the purpose of examining as to whether the action of CVC in refusing the grant of clearance was proper or not. As there were not proceeding pending against him at that time, the clearance should have been given by the CVC. Merely because some investigation was pending was no ground to withhold the clearance and for this purpose petitioner relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Janki Raman, , and Delhi Development Authority v. H.C. Khurana, . His further submission was that in any case, in order to see that the name of the petitioner is not cleared some anonymous and pseudonymous complaints were filed against the petitioner on totally frivolous ground and the respondent could not act on such anonymous/pseudonymous complaints. Even if these complaints were pending, the CVC should have given the clearance in the case of petitioner for his appointment as Director (Civil) and CVC/respondent could still investigate the matter.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Shri Y.N.P. Sinha vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 March, 2000

15. On the basis of the averments made in the petition, rejoinder affidavits and additional affidavits filed by the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Nigam learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the CVC in not giving vigilance clearance to the petitioner was improper and arbitrary. His basic submission was that as on 1997, when his case was sent to CVC for clearance there was nothing against him. On the basis material produced before CVC at that time CVC could not have withheld the clearance. According to him, that should be treated as cut off date for the purpose of examining as to whether the action of CVC in refusing the grant of clearance was proper or not. As there were no proceeding pending against him at that time, the clearance should have been given by the CVC. Merely because some investigation was pending was no ground to withhold the clearance and for this purpose petitioner relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Janki Raman, and Delhi Development Authority v. H.C. Khurana, . His further submission was that in any case, in order to see that the name of the petitioner is not cleared some anonymous and pseudonymous complaints were filed against the petitioner on totally frivolous grounds and the respondent could not act on such anonymous/pseudonymous complaints. Even if these complaints were pending, the CVC should have given the clearance in the case of petitioner for his appointment as Director (Civil) and CVC/respondent could still investigate the matter.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1