Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 171 (4.61 seconds)Documents citing
Cellular Operators Association Of ... vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India ... on 11 May, 2016
Star India Private Limited vs Department Of Industrial Policy And ...
23. Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of the decision in Cellular Operators Assn. of India, supra, it may be necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given, and what was the point which had to be decided. The interpretation of Sections 11 and 36 in the said judgment are undoubtedly binding.
Vodafone India Ltd. And Ors. vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India on 4 September, 2017
Indisputably, consultation is a necessary facet of transparency ( as
held by the Supreme Court in Cellular Operators Association of India and
Others v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and Others ), however
W.P.(C) 6388/2017 Page 11 of 15
the extent and the manner of such consultation depends on the function
being performed. The requirement and scope of consultation in the context
of an administrative action is materially different from that in the context of
a legislative action.
Hc Balbir Singj And Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 6 March, 2024
In Cellular Operators Association of India v.
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, (2016) 7 SCC 703,
this Court referred to earlier precedents, and held:
Shri Shiv Binod Sharma vs Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation ... on 9 April, 2024
―13.... In order that delegated legislation, can be struck down, such legislation must
be manifestly arbitrary; a law which could not be reasonably expected to emanate
from an authority delegated with the law / making power........ A subordinate
legislation may be questioned under Article 14 on the ground that it is unreasonable;
‗unreasonable' not in the sense of not being reasonable, but in the sense that it is
manifestly arbitrary' ..... In India, arbitrariness is not a separate ground, since it will
come within the embargo of Article 14 of the Constitution. But subordinate legislation
must be so arbitrary that it could not be said to be in conformity with the statute or
that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution.‖
The above judgment was taken note of by the Supreme Court along with
the case of Sharma Transport v. State of A.P.,(2002) 2 SCC 188 (para-25)in the
case of Cellular Operators Association of India (supra).
Rayalaseema Degree Colleges ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 December, 2021
As discussed above, in view of the principles laid down by the
Apex Court in "State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamoorthy" and
"Cellular Operators Association of India v. Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India" (referred supra), this Court can exercise its
power to interfere with the subordinate legislation and set aside the
same if it is found manifestly arbitrary or unreasonableness.
Suhail Rashid Bhat vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others on 25 October, 2019
In Cellular Operators Association of India v.
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, (2016) 7 SCC 703, this
Court referred to earlier precedents, and held:
Vodafone India Ltd & Ors vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India on 20 September, 2017
As held in the Cellular Operators case,
the definition of transparency in the latter enactment can serve as a good guide,
for adoption by TRAI.
Sucha Lal vs The Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd And Ors on 19 September, 2022
In Cellular Operators
Association of India v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of
India, (2016) 7 SCC 703, this Court referred to earlier
precedents, and held:
Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. ... vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 6 December, 2017
In Cellular Operators Association of India (supra), the Apex
Court categorically held that the impugned Regulation did not fall under
Section 11(1)(b)(i) & (v) as it was not made to ensure compliance with the
terms and conditions of the licence nor has it been made to lay down any
standard of quality of service that needs compliance. The impugned
Regulation is de hors Section 11 but cannot be said to be inconsistent with
Section 11 of the Act. It was also held that far from carrying out the
purposes of the Act, a Regulation is made contrary to such purposes, such
Regulation cannot be said to be consistent with the Act, for it must be
consistent with both the letter of the Act and the purposes for which the Act
has been enacted. The Apex Court held that the impugned Regulation did
not carry out the purpose of the Act and was ultra vires the Act on this
score.