Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Mrs. Shailaja R. Khanvilkar And Ors vs The Union Of India Throu The Ministry Of ... on 30 September, 2019

Shivshankar Agencies vs / on 27 June, 2025

In fact, in paragraph No.13 of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shailaja R.Khanvilkar and others Vs. Union of India through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and others (supra), the Court has observed that policy of transfer made without consultation of the dealer whose rights will be impinged by such transfer is bad. It is not shown as to whether any consultation made with the dealers before introduction of the new policy also.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Maha Active Engineers India Pvt Ltd vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 10 January, 2022

[Emphasis Supplied] 7.7 This Court, in Shailaja Khanvilkar v. Union of India, while dealing with an arbitrary action of State similar to the Respondents' action in the present case, Kanchan P Dhuri 19 / 29 WPL-21635-2021.odt rejected the plea of availability of alternate remedy under a contract by holding that the Petitioner therein had impugned a circular as being arbitrary, unreasonable, and irrational, and in fact had not challenged any breach of the contract between the parties therein. The relevant portion of this Court's judgment is reproduced here :
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Gautam Basu vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 July, 2025

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the earlier occasion, the oil marketing companies have issued circular under the same nomenclature on 4th January, 2018 and 9th January, 2018 respectively regarding the policy of customer transfer from one distributor to another distributor. The said policy was under challenge initially before the Hon'ble Division 2 Bench of the Bombay High Court in writ petition No.8753 of 2018 [Mrs. Shailaja R. Khanvilkar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.] wherein the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed the said circular dated 4th January, 2018 issued by the oil marketing companies against which oil marketing companies proceeded to the Hon'ble Apex Court through SLP. The Hon'ble Apex Court had not granted any stay against the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and had admitted for hearing under civil appeal.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ratna Saha vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 July, 2025

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the earlier occasion, the oil marketing companies have issued circular under the same nomenclature on 4th January, 2018 and 9th January, 2018 respectively regarding the policy of customer transfer from one distributor to another distributor. The said policy was under challenge initially before the Hon'ble Division 2 Bench of the Bombay High Court in writ petition No.8753 of 2018 [Mrs. Shailaja R. Khanvilkar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.] wherein the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed the said circular dated 4th January, 2018 issued by the oil marketing companies against which oil marketing companies proceeded to the Hon'ble Apex Court through SLP. The Hon'ble Apex Court had not granted any stay against the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and had admitted for hearing under civil appeal.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 July, 2025

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the earlier occasion, the oil marketing companies have issued circular under the same nomenclature on 4th January, 2018 and 9th January, 2018 respectively regarding the policy of customer transfer from one distributor to another distributor. The said policy was 2 under challenge initially before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in writ petition No.8753 of 2018 [Mrs. Shailaja R. Khanvilkar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.] wherein the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed the said circular dated 4th January, 2018 issued by the oil marketing companies against which oil marketing companies proceeded to the Hon'ble Apex Court through SLP. The Hon'ble Apex Court had not granted any stay against the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and had admitted for hearing under civil appeal.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Kitchen Queen & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 July, 2025

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the earlier occasion, the oil marketing companies have issued circular under the same nomenclature on 4th January, 2018 and 9th January, 2018 respectively regarding the policy of customer transfer from one distributor to another distributor. The said policy was under challenge initially before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in writ petition 2 No.8753 of 2018 [Mrs. Shailaja R. Khanvilkar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.] wherein the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed the said circular dated 4th January, 2018 issued by the oil marketing companies against which oil marketing companies proceeded to the Hon'ble Apex Court through SLP. The Hon'ble Apex Court had not granted any stay against the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and had admitted for hearing under civil appeal.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nilima Pal vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 August, 2025

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the earlier occasion, the oil marketing companies have issued circular under the same nomenclature on 4th January, 2018 and 9th January, 2018 respectively regarding the policy of customer transfer from one distributor to another distributor. The said policy was 2 under challenge initially before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in writ petition No.8753 of 2018 [Mrs. Shailaja R. Khanvilkar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.] wherein the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed the said circular dated 4th January, 2018 issued by the oil marketing companies against which oil marketing companies proceeded to the Hon'ble Apex Court through SLP. The Hon'ble Apex Court had not granted any stay against the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and had admitted for hearing under civil appeal.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Bagnan Gas Agency & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 August, 2025

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the earlier occasion, the oil marketing companies have issued circular under the same nomenclature on 4th January, 2018 and 9th January, 2018 respectively regarding the policy of customer transfer from one distributor to another distributor. The said policy was 2 under challenge initially before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in writ petition No.8753 of 2018 [Mrs. Shailaja R. Khanvilkar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.] wherein the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed the said circular dated 4th January, 2018 issued by the oil marketing companies against which oil marketing companies proceeded to the Hon'ble Apex Court through SLP. The Hon'ble Apex Court had not granted any stay against the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and had admitted for hearing under civil appeal.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kabyashree Mukherjee vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 August, 2025

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the earlier occasion, the oil marketing companies have issued circular under the same nomenclature on 4th January, 2018 and 9th January, 2018 respectively regarding the policy of customer transfer from one distributor to another distributor. The said policy was 2 under challenge initially before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in writ petition No.8753 of 2018 [Mrs. Shailaja R. Khanvilkar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.] wherein the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed the said circular dated 4th January, 2018 issued by the oil marketing companies against which oil marketing companies proceeded to the Hon'ble Apex Court through SLP. The Hon'ble Apex Court had not granted any stay against the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and had admitted for hearing under civil appeal.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next