Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (2.56 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Medley Minerals India Ltd vs State Of Orissa & Others on 17 September, 2004

Smt. Rashmi Jain W/O Shri Pravesh Jain vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, ... on 23 May, 2008

Also ruled by the Apex Court in Medley Minerals India Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors. that a plea of malafide has to be specific and demonstrable. As we do not find except the stray incidents quoted by the applicant, non-arraying the concerned as a necessary party is non-discharge of condition precedent for establishing malafide and as such no legal inference could be derived on this issue.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B. Srinivasa Reddy vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply And ... on 3 April, 2006

Further, it is contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Nilangshu Bhusan Basu v. Deb K. Sinha , wherein it is held that in the absence of any rule to that effect; it would be an administrative function of the appointing authority to take a decision as to which method should be adopted for recruitment to fill up any particular post of public office (para 7), He also placed reliance on Medley Minerals India Limited v. State of Orissa and Ors. , to contend that there must be specific and demonstrable plea of mala fides and persons against whom mala fides are alleged must be made a party otherwise no finding can be recorded in this regard and relief can be granted to the petitioners. He contended that the writ petition was required to be rejected by the learned Single Judge for suppression of material facts.
Karnataka High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 212 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Niit Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 December, 2009

16. Countering these arguments, Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General, tried to cut the very root of the submissions by contending that the person against whom mala fides are alleged, namely, Mr. A.L. Mehta, was not even impleaded as a party to these proceedings. Thus, no mala fides could be imputed WP (C) No. 4722/2008 & batch nsk Page 11 of 19 insofar as Mr. Mehta is concerned in his absence, as held by the Supreme Court in (1997) 9 SCC 151 and M/s. Medley Minerals India Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Ors., JT 2004 (8) SC 29. He further submitted that the petitioner‟s contention that the assessment has been completed under monitoring of senior officials is also wrong as is clear from paras 3 and 4 of the impugned order depicting independent mind of the respondent No.4. Similarly, the plea of the petitioner that the proceedings have been initiated on account of any pressure, as alleged, is also wrong and misconceived. His submission was that the records clearly indicated otherwise.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next