Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 63 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs S.U.T.N.I. Sangam & Ors on 29 July, 2009

Maithon Power Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 22 February, 2018

In my considered opinion, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the award dated 09.05.2011 could not have been reviewed by the competent authority is foreclosed by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority India Ltd. VS. Sutni Sangam & Ors. as also for the inherent power attributed to all courts and Tribunals by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rajendra Singh (Supra.) to recall orders obtained by fraud.-----"
Jharkhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Shankar - Full Document

Shahjahan S/O. Ameerjan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 15 July, 2019

Admittedly, the protest that was made by the appellant was prior to the award being passed and therefore, the same has no weight age or bearing. The Act mandates that pursuant to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21 W.A.No.4025 of 2019 the award, within a specified period of time, as set out in Section 18 of the Act, the appellant has to make an application requesting for enhancement of the compensation amount. Admittedly, no such application was made within the specified period of time. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India vs. SUTNI Sangam cited supra, has categorically held that “for invoking Section 18, the person interested is required (1) not to accept the award;
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

Smt Nirmal vs Competent Authority (Land Acq)Anr on 24 July, 2012

In my considered opinion, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the award dated 9th May, 2011 could not have been reviewed by the Competent Authority is foreclosed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. versus Sutni Sangam & Others (supra) as also for the inherent power attributed to all courts and Tribunals by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Rajendra Singh (supra) to recall orders obtained by fraud. In my considered opinion, the present case is of defrauding public revenues of approximately Rs. 59,80,368/-. Fraud in obtaining the award dated 9th May, 2011 the first instance on the basis of pleadings before this Court is quite clearly established. It is now the admitted case of the petitioner that Petrol Pump falls beyond 35 meters of the central line of the road in issue and that the land acquired was within 35 meters. Consequently, the land acquired was not converted for commercial user. The Competent Authority was led into determination of compensation for the land acquired as commercial on the basis of submission of forged and fabricated documents, which the counsel for the petitioner has emphatically submitted were not the doing of the petitioner but that of the officers of National Highway Authority of India.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Smt Nirmal vs Competent Authority (Land Acq)Anr on 24 July, 2012

In my considered opinion, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the award dated 9th May, 2011 could not have been reviewed by the Competent Authority is foreclosed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. versus Sutni Sangam & Others (supra) as also for the inherent power attributed to all courts and Tribunals by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Rajendra Singh (supra) to recall orders obtained by fraud. In my considered opinion, the present case is of defrauding public revenues of approximately Rs. 59,80,368/-. Fraud in obtaining the award dated 9th May, 2011 the first instance on the basis of pleadings before this Court is quite clearly established. It is now the admitted case of the petitioner that Petrol Pump falls beyond 35 meters of the central line of the road in issue and that the land acquired was within 35 meters. Consequently, the land acquired was not converted for commercial user. The Competent Authority was led into determination of compensation for the land acquired as commercial on the basis of submission of forged and fabricated documents, which the counsel for the petitioner has emphatically submitted were not the doing of the petitioner but that of the officers of National Highway Authority of India.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Bal Bahadur Tamang & Ors vs State Of Sikkim And Ors on 1 May, 2014

31. In the present case, it is not the Respondent No.6 who has approached this Court but the Petitioners, and, therefore, this plea is not available to it. No doubt, there is a remedy of reference under Section 18, but that pertains to persons interested who have not accepted the award. This provision and other provisions cognate thereto would not be available to the user agencies like the Respondent No.6. As held in Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Sutni Sangam and Others : (2009) SCC 16 "........... The expression "person interested" for the purpose of Section 18 of the Act may be given a restricted meaning. A State is not a person interested. A company or a local authority for whose benefit the lands are acquired, having regard to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act, is not entitled to file any application for reference." (underlining supplied). The only remedy available for them was under Section 50(2), but as observed earlier, even this appears to have been exhausted.
Sikkim High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - S P Wangdi - Full Document

Lalaram vs Jaipur Devt.Auth.&Amp Anr. on 1 December, 2015

In espousing this equitable notion of exacting fairness in governmental dealings, this Court in Food Corporation of India (supra) proclaimed that there was no unfettered discretion in public law and that a sovereign authority possessed powers only to use them for public good. Observing that the investiture of such power imposes with it, the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is ‘fair play in action’, it was underlined that it also raises a 106 reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his dealings with the State and its instrumentalities.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - A Roy - Full Document

Kewal Kumar Jaggi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 November, 2021

5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged that the Reference Court in its order had failed to consider the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case 8 M.P. No.2493/2021 reported in (2009) 16 SCC 1 [Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Sutni Sangam and others] and also in holding that the Supreme Court in the above case had considered the expression person interested in respect of provisions of Act, 1894, whereas the present case is of WODA, therefore, the said case has no applicability in the present case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 3 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

M/S Shyamaraju And Co (India) Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 13 July, 2010

It is further contended that Section 4 of the Customs Act has been invoked by Notifications to enabie the officers under the SEZ Act to exercise powers under the. Customs A(:t"'ou_'t--side the SEZ for a iimited area and for a limited purposxexinv i' check the possibility of smuggling out of :t's~'-5,7,. It is emphasized that thereis no atternpt to u_se"e.xe3rnption"~_ provision in Section. 25 ofthe Custo"ms'tAct toi'in1p'o:-zie The duty of export of these are preisieriVbeid~--.under the amended Scheduie of the Customs Tariff Act i._arid t'he.ViNfojtifications referred to above. wonky. fix. of duty to be levied within the ceiling of theyprescribed..r'ate_i"..'e<)f duty.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - A Byrareddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next