Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 118 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Manohar vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 13 December, 2012

Best Agrolife Limited vs Deputy Controller Of Patents & Anr. on 7 July, 2022

23. The said reasoning has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14 : AIR 2013 SC 681 wherein it has been categorically observed that application of mind and recording of reasoned decision are the basic elements of natural justice. There can be no doubt that scrupulous adherence to these principles would be required while rejecting patent applications.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 3 - J Singh - Full Document

D.P.Ramamurthy vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2025

13. The Supreme Court in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 900) further affirms that the highest bona fide transaction must be adopted, that certified sale deeds must be accepted unless proved otherwise, and that ignoring a superior exemplar constitutes an error of law. In this light, Ex.C4 emerges as the best and most reliable exemplar, and its rejection by the Reference Court is legally unsustainable.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sambhu Prasad Singh vs Jharkhand State Information ... on 18 April, 2024

7. So far as the impugned order relating to recommendation for disciplinary action against the writ petitioner -Public Information Officer is concerned, in view of the settled principle of law in the case of Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (supra), as the said order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice, hence in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Nandan Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra), the portion of the order recommending the disciplinary action against the writ petitioner -Public Information Officer is set aside.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

D.P.Ramamurthy vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2025

13. The Supreme Court in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 900) further affirms that the highest bona fide transaction must be adopted, that certified sale deeds must be accepted unless proved otherwise, and that ignoring a superior exemplar constitutes an error of law. In this light, Ex.C4 emerges as the best and most reliable exemplar, and its rejection by the Reference Court is legally unsustainable.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.P.Ramamurthy vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2025

13. The Supreme Court in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 900) further affirms that the highest bona fide transaction must be adopted, that certified sale deeds must be accepted unless proved otherwise, and that ignoring a superior exemplar constitutes an error of law. In this light, Ex.C4 emerges as the best and most reliable exemplar, and its rejection by the Reference Court is legally unsustainable.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Fortune Five Hydel Projects Pvt. ... vs Karnataka Electricity Regulatory ... on 29 March, 2019

15.11 We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the Appellants and the Respondents and thoroughly evaluated the material placed on record before us. What thus transpires from the bare perusal from the respective petition filed by the Page 154 of 167 Judgment of A.42 of 2018 & batch ESCOMs that the petitions were in relation to the wheeling and banking facility given to wind generators and the Respondent Commission while issuing the public notice dated 13.05.2017 had also referred to the ESCOMs petitions to be in relation to wind generators only. The Respondent Commission while giving its consideration for modification of banking period had also referred to wind generation in Para 13 of the Order, however while passing the operative part of the impugned order, solar projects were also included for reducing their banking period. The Appellant's counsel contend that it is curious to see that even ESCOMs have not pleaded reduction of solar banking period but the Respondent Commission included all RE generation for modification in the impugned order. It is contended by the Appellants specifically the solar generators that the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice and ought to be set aside. In addition to the above, it is trite law that when a quasi judicial body seeks to affect adversely right of parties then it is incumbent duty to give notice as well as hearing to such affected parties which has not been done in the instant case. The aforesaid principle of law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal in cases of Manohar vs. State of Maharashtra and High Tech Industries Vs. HPERC & Ors. Besides, such modification in banking and wheeling arrangement directed by the Respondent Commission violates the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation as the developers/generators have made substantial investments and entered into commercial arrangements based on the assurance given to them by the State ESCOMs that the terms of banking shall be on annual basis and WBA shall be valid for 10 years from the date of execution. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of Judgments has held that if based on a Government Representation a party alters its position then the said party has the legitimate right to Page 155 of 167 Judgment of A.42 of 2018 & batch seek enforcement of the said representations. The apex court through its various judgments has also held that any change from an assured proposition infringes the doctrine of legitimate expectation and additionally held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is an aspect of Article 14 and would be relevant when determining if an action by a statutory authority was arbitrary.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 109 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next