Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13234 (4.08 seconds)
Documents citing Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979

Shreejikrupa Project Limited vs Telecommunication Consultants India ... on 26 July, 2023

48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] . However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decision should be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Sushil Kumar vs Central Registrar Of Coop Socy And Ors on 19 July, 2022

"14. We may also like to point out that the aforesaid examination of the issue undertaken by the High Court is keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments and the tests which are to be applied to arrive at the decision as to whether a particular authority can be termed as "State" or "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12.It took note of the Constitution Bench decision in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] wherein the following six tests were culled out from its earlier judgment in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489] : (Ajay Hasia case [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] , SCC p. 737, para 9) "(1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by the Government, it would go a long way 22[(2015) 4 SCC 670] W.P. (C) 2942/2020 & W.P.(C) 2059/2021 Page 42 of 55 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:19.07.2022 13:45:15 towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the Government.
Delhi High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 7 - Y Varma - Full Document

Relisys Medical Devices Limited vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jp:22694) on 6 September, 2023

The action or the procedure adopted by the authorities which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12, while awarding contracts in respect of properties belonging to the State, can be judged and tested in the light of Article 14. Once the State decides to grant any right or privilege to others, then there is no escape from the rigour of Article 14. These principles are settled by the judgments of this Court in the cases of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India MANU/SC/0048/1979 : (1979)IILLJ217SC , Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J & KMANU/SC/0079/1980 : [1980]3SCR1338 , Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0017/1985 : AIR1985SC1147 , Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation MANU/SC/0191/1990 : [1990]1SCR818 , Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications MANU/SC/0439/1993 : AIR1996SC51 and A.B. International Exports v. State Corporation of India. 2000(3) SCC 553 Executive does not have an absolute discretion, certain principles have to be followed, the public interest being the paramount consideration."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - I Singh - Full Document

M/S Translumina Therapeutics Llp vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jp:22694) on 6 September, 2023

The action or the procedure adopted by the authorities which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12, while awarding contracts in respect of properties belonging to the State, can be judged and tested in the light of Article 14. Once the State decides to grant any right or privilege to others, then there is no escape from the rigour of Article 14. These principles are settled by the judgments of this Court in the cases of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India MANU/SC/0048/1979 : (1979)IILLJ217SC , Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J & KMANU/SC/0079/1980 : [1980]3SCR1338 , Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0017/1985 : AIR1985SC1147 , Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation MANU/SC/0191/1990 : [1990]1SCR818 , Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications MANU/SC/0439/1993 : AIR1996SC51 and A.B. International Exports v. State Corporation of India. 2000(3) SCC 553 Executive does not have an absolute discretion, certain principles have to be followed, the public interest being the paramount consideration."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - I Singh - Full Document

Sahajanand Medical Technologies Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jp:22694) on 6 September, 2023

The action or the procedure adopted by the authorities which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12, while awarding contracts in respect of properties belonging to the State, can be judged and tested in the light of Article 14. Once the State decides to grant any right or privilege to others, then there is no escape from the rigour of Article 14. These principles are settled by the judgments of this Court in the cases of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India MANU/SC/0048/1979 : (1979)IILLJ217SC , Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J & KMANU/SC/0079/1980 : [1980]3SCR1338 , Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0017/1985 : AIR1985SC1147 , Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation MANU/SC/0191/1990 : [1990]1SCR818 , Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications MANU/SC/0439/1993 : AIR1996SC51 and A.B. International Exports v. State Corporation of India. 2000(3) SCC 553 Executive does not have an absolute discretion, certain principles have to be followed, the public interest being the paramount consideration."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - I Singh - Full Document

C.V. Raman And Ors. vs Bank Of India And Ors. on 18 April, 1984

We have already noted the definition of the word "establishment" under the Tamil Nadu Shops Act which includes "a bank". However, it is no doubt correct as Sri Gopinath, learned counsel, would contend that if the argument of the petitioner is accepted, all the banks would go out of the purview of the Tamil Nadu Shops Act. Apart from the nationalised banks, which have been taken over under Central Act 5 of 1970, there are still other banks which would certainly fall within the definition of "establishment" under section 2(3) of this Act. No doubt, in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (supra), in para. 19, financial assistance is stated to be one of the tests. Here also the shareholdings of the State Bank of India is as under : (The affidavit of R. C. Royappa may now be extracted to show the percentage of shareholders) "The authorised capital of the bank is Rs. 20 crores consisting of 20 lakhs shares of Rs. 100 each. The issued and subscribed capital is Rs. 5,62,50,000 consisting of 5,62,500 shares of Rs. 100 each. The total number of shareholders of the bank is 2,749 which consists of Reserve Bank of India, 73 other institutions and Government agencies and 2,675 individual shareholders. Out of the total 5,62,500 shares, Reserve Bank holds 5,18,000 shares, i.e. 92 per cent. financial institutions and Government agencies 3.4 per cent. and individual shareholders 4.6 per cent. of the holdings."
Madras High Court Cites 129 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.V. Raman And Ors. vs The Management Of Bank Of India, ... on 18 April, 1984

72. We have already noted the definition of the word 'establishment' under the Tamil Nadu Shops Act which includes 'a bank'. However, it is no doubt correct as Mr. Gopinath, learned Counsel would contend that it the argument of the petitioner is accepted, all the banks would go out of the purview of the Tamil Nadu Shops Act. Apart from the nationalised Bank, which have been taken over under Central Act V of 1970, there are still other banks which would certainly fall within the definition of 'establishment' under S. 2(3) of this Act. No doubt in Ramana v. I. A. Authority of India (supra) in paragraph 19, finance assistance is stated to be one of the tests. Here also the shareholdings of the State Bank of India is as under : The affidavit of R. C. Royappa may now be extracted to show the percentage of shareholders.
Madras High Court Cites 136 - Cited by 8 - S Mohan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next