Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 697 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 1996

K.Sunder Rao, vs The District Collector, on 27 June, 2019

Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State (referred supra), the Apex Court made it clear that the property of endowments institutions or temples must be jealously protected as large segment of the community has beneficial interest in it. If the principle in Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra(referred supra) is applied to the present facts, in view of the judgments in Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Govt. of A.P(referred supra) and Cyrus Rustam Patelv. Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State (referred supra), the Court must lean towards protecting the public interest and not the private interest i.e. in the interest of the petitioners while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8 Therefore, we find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

S.V.K.Durga Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 June, 2020

At the same time, in Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Govt. of A.P (referred supra) and Cyrus Rustam Patel v. Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State (referred supra), the Apex Court made it clear that the property of endowments institutions or temples must be jealously protected as large segment of the community has beneficial interest in it. If the principle in Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra (referred supra) is applied to the present facts, in view of the judgments in Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Govt. of A.P (referred supra) and Cyrus Rustam Patelv. Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State (referred supra), the Court must lean towards protecting the public interest and not the private interest i.e. in the interest of the petitioners while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we find no merit in the 23 (1998) 3 SCC 573 32 HACJ &MSM,J WP No.5220 of 2015 & batch contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, this point is answered.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - C P Kumar - Full Document

M/S.Travel News Services (India) ... vs Airports Authority Of India (Southern ... on 11 August, 2017

7. The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489; Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568; CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 1 SCC 260 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 75; Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Ramniklal N.Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 134 and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., ((1999) 1 SCC 492. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are of paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision making process the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene.
Madras High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 1 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

Gorakh Prasad & Ors vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors on 12 September, 2017

The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., Tata Cellular v. Union of India, Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution Patna High Court CWJC No.476 of 2017 dt.12/09/2017 73/84 and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene." (Emphasis supplied)
Patna High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Babu Lal And Ors. Through Its Partner ... vs Director Of Income-Tax ... on 9 March, 2005

47. Writ jurisdiction is a discretionary. It is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. The purpose of the writ Court is not only to protect a person from being subjected to violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the Court. However, the power being discretionary, the Court has to balance the competing interest, keeping in mind that interest of justice and public interest can coalesce in certain circumstances. The Court must so act as to prevent prepatoration of a legal fraud and to promote good faith and equity. (Vide Champalal Binani v. Income Tax Commissioner, West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 645; Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR 1994 SC 2151; Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 134; Chimajirao K. Shrike v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2532; Ganpatrao Shama Prashant Raje v. Ganpat Rao, AIR 2000 SC 3094; LIC of India v. Asha Goyal, AIR 2001 SC 549; Roshandeen v. Preeti Lal, AIR 2002 SC 33; The State Financial Corporation and Anr. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Anr., AIR 2002 SC 834; S.D.S. Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. Jay Container Services Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 2003 (4) Supreme 44; and Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. JT 2003 (6) SC 20).
Allahabad High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

A.R.Adil Basha vs The Project Director (A/C) on 21 October, 2011

"27. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly reveal that the request for a personal hearing was conditional, in that if a clarification or additional documents were required, time for that purpose be given. It is also significant that the objections filed by the appellants form (almost exclusively) the basis for the present writ petition inasmuch as the fact that there was no need for the change of the alignment of the trumpet interchange and the access road or that alternative land was available for that purpose, had been spelt out therein. The Collector in dealing with the objections had observed that several objections/documents had been filed by the appellants but were liable to rejection as the acquisition was necessary for Bangalore Airport. We are also not unmindful of the fact that though the rights of an individual whose property is sought to be acquired must be scrupulously respected, an acquisition for the benefit of the public at large is not to be lightly quashed and extraordinary reasons must exist for doing so. This is the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Ramniklal N.Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra ( 1997 (1) SCC 134 ), wherein it has been held as under: (SCC p.140, para 10) "10. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226--indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings."
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

Master Singham Through Natural ... vs Directorate Of Education & Anr. on 5 December, 2023

"44. The appellants have not approached the court with clean hands, and are therefore, not entitled for any relief. Whenever a person approaches a court of equity, in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, it is expected that he will approach the said court not only with clean hands but also with a clean mind, a clean heart and clean objectives. Thus, he who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by causing loss or injury to another. (Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India [1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 : AIR 1993 SC 852] , Noorduddin v. K.L. Anand [(1995) 1 SCC 242] and Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 134 : AIR 1997 SC 1236] .)
Delhi High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - P K Kaurav - Full Document

Sandhya Mondal And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 7 August, 2006

19. Now remains the decision referred to in Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra). In this Judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court thinking about the economic progress of the country and industrialisation thought about the infrastructure required for the same and cautioned the High Courts not to grant stay or injunction in each and every case of acquisition and the Hon'ble Apex Court also came up with the view that it is more plausible to suggest to award damage instead of quashing the acquisition proceeding but in the instant case the acquisition is not at all for public purpose and is ex facie, mala fide. In such a case awarding of damage or compensation with damage is not going to solve the purpose.
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sivaprakasam vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 November, 2014

In the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (S. Ekambaram and others vs. Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and others) reported in 2014 3 MLJ 513, relied on by the learned Advocate General, reference was made to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramniklal N. Bhuvva vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1997 SC 1236 wherein it was held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next