Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.55 seconds)
Documents citing Hotel Sea Gull vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 March, 2002

Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs Union Of India on 14 May, 2015

57. At this stage, we must also deal with certain submissions made by Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for one of the appellants. The phrase “if deemed expedient” occurring in Clause 4.1 of the Licence must be understood in the light of the interpretation of the expression “expedient” in Hotel Sea Gull v. State of West 31 Bengal & Others, (2002) 4 SCC 1 wherein it was held by this Court to mean “whatever is suitable and appropriate for any reason for the accomplishment of the specified object”. It is argued that the question of extension of licence must be decided by the Government of India on the basis of objective and rational criteria by taking into account relevant materials and eschewing irrelevant material. Learned senior counsel in his written submission 6 gave certain facts and figures which according to him are relevant in coming to a conclusion whether it would be expedient to extend the period of licence. It is also submitted that the phrase “on terms mutually agreed” must also be understood to mean that the Government of India’s decision for extension of the licences be based only on relevant and objective criteria such as “the quality, affordability, reach of the services provided by the petitioner and the investments made by it during the initial 20 year period, being satisfactory, the license would be extended by 10 years at one time”. (Written Submission)
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Partha Ghosh vs The Institute Of Chartered Accountants on 16 April, 2009

In the case of Hotel Sea Gull vs State of West Bengal and others, (2002) 4 SCC 1, the Supreme Court while referring to the word `expedient' held that the expression occurring in the statute authorizing modification, revocation under the circumstances would comprehend whatever is suitable and appropriate for any reason for the accomplishment of the specified object. The specific object under the provision with which we are concerned is grant of hearing, right of defence, fairness in procedure and prosecution of a procedure which is just and expedient. Similarly, the expression `just' ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:31:21 ::: 41 connotes equality, fairness and reasonableness which would obviously result in exclusion of arbitrariness as what is arbitrary cannot be just.
Bombay High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Narayan S/O Gujabrao Bhoyar vs Yeotmal Zilla Parishad Karmachari on 25 September, 2009

In the case of Hotel Sea Gull vs State of West Bengal and others, (2002) 4 SCC 1, the Supreme Court while referring to the word `expedient' held that the expression occurring in the statute authorizing modification, revocation under the circumstances would comprehend whatever is suitable and appropriate for any reason for the accomplishment of the specified object. The specific object under the provision with which we are concerned is grant of hearing, right of defence, fairness in procedure and prosecution of a procedure which is just and expedient. Similarly, the expression `just' connotes equality, fairness and reasonableness which would obviously result in exclusion of arbitrariness as what is arbitrary cannot be just.
Bombay High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Bharti Airtel Ltd vs Union Of India on 14 May, 2015

57. At this stage, we must also deal with certain submissions made by Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for one of the appellants. The phrase “if deemed expedient” occurring in Clause 4.1 of the Licence must be understood in the light of the interpretation of the expression “expedient” in Hotel Sea Gull v. State of West Bengal & Others, (2002) 4 SCC 1 wherein it was held by this Court to mean “whatever is suitable and appropriate for any reason for the accomplishment of the specified object”. It is argued that the question of extension of licence must be decided by the Government of India on the basis of objective and rational criteria by taking into account relevant materials and eschewing irrelevant material. Learned senior counsel in his written submission[6] gave certain facts and figures which according to him are relevant in coming to a conclusion whether it would be expedient to extend the period of licence. It is also submitted that the phrase “on terms mutually agreed” must also be understood to mean that the Government of India’s decision for extension of the licences be based only on relevant and objective criteria such as “the quality, affordability, reach of the services provided by the petitioner and the investments made by it during the initial 20 year period, being satisfactory, the license would be extended by 10 years at one time”. (Written Submission)
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India vs Kabir Shankar Bose & Ors on 22 December, 2023

43. To hold that asking for information in relation to interception or tracking or tapping of a phone would be within the power of TRAI under Section 12 of the TRAI Act, would not be in conformity with the functions specified in Section 11 of the TRAI Act. Any contrary view would give the authority unbridled power to call for information and interfere with the functions of telecom service providers, and also would not be in consonance with the objects sought to be achieved by the TRAI Act. As referred to above, the authority was established for the purpose of regulating telecom services to protect the interest of service providers and consumers in the telecom sector, and to promote and ensure orderly growth of the sector.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India vs Jitendra Pratap Singh & Ors on 29 January, 2024

43. To hold that asking for information in relation to interception or tracking or tapping of a phone would be within the power of TRAI under Section 12 of the TRAI Act, would not be in conformity with the functions specified in Section 11 of the TRAI Act. Any contrary view would give the authority unbridled power to call for information and interfere with the functions of telecom service providers, and also would not be in consonance with the objects sought to be achieved by the TRAI Act. As referred to above, the authority was established for the purpose of regulating telecom services to protect the interest of service providers and consumers in the telecom sector, and to W.P.(C) 12495/2021 Page 3 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document
1