Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1226 (6.90 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Orissa vs Sudhansu Sekhar Misra And Ors on 7 November, 1967

West Bengal State Electricity ... vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 12 February, 2024

It is not a profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from a judgment and to build up on it. (Quinn v. Leathern, [1901] A.C. 495; State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, AIR 1968 SC 647; Delhi Page 279 of 387 Administration (NCT of Delhi) v. Manohar Lal, (2002) 7 SCC 222; Dr. Nalini Mahajan v. Director of Income-tax (Investigation), (2002) 257 ITR 123 Delhi) and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill P. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111; B.F. Ditia v. Appropriate Authority, Income-Tax Department, 2008 SCC OnLine AP 904; Sri. Konaseema Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. N. Seetharama Raju, AIR 1990 AP 171; Kanwar Amninder Singh v. High Court of Uttarakhand, 2018 SCC OnLine UTT 1026). Neither should Judgments be read as statutes.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 434 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs Tata Power Company Limited & Anr on 25 February, 2026

It is not a profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from a judgment and to build upon it. (Quinn v. Leathern, [1901] A.C. 495; State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, AIR 1968 SC 647; Delhi Administration (NCT of Delhi) v. Manohar Lal, (2002) 7 SCC 222; Dr. (Investigation), (2002) Nalini 257 Mahajan v. Director of Income-tax ITR 123 Delhi) and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill P. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111; B.F. Ditia v. Appropriate Authority, Income-Tax Department, 2008 SCC OnLine AP 904; Sri. Konaseema Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. N. Seetharama Raju, AIR 1990 AP 171; Kanwar Amninder Singh v. High Court of Uttarakhand, 2018 SCC OnLine UTT 1026) A word here or a word there should not be made the basis for inferring inconsistency or conflict of opinion. Law does not develop in a casual manner. It develops by conscious, considered steps.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 188 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ntpc Limited vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 28 August, 2023

Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assume to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The case cannot be quoted for a preposition that may seem to follow logically from it. (State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra [AIR 1968 SC 647] : Quinn v. Loathem (1901) A.C. 495; Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 1866). What is binding is the ratio of the decision, and not any finding of fact. It is the principle found upon a reading of a judgment as a whole, in the light of the questions before the Court, that forms the ratio and not any particular word or sentence.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 153 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Shailaja A. Sawant (Dr.) vs Sayajirao Ganpatrao Patil on 19 December, 2003

18. Thus, the law is now well settled as to what a ratio decidendi is. An obiter dictum as distinguished from ratio decidendi is an observation by the Court on a legal question suggested in a case before it but not arising in such manner as to require a decision. The law, which will be binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India extends to all observations of the points raised and decided by the Court in a given case. The only opinion, which would be binding, would be an opinion expressed on a question that arose for determination of a Supreme Court. "Obiter dicta", therefore, as observed by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Shekar Misra (supra), must be distinguished from casual observations made in a judgment on a point not calling for decision and not argued before the Court. The observation made in passing with reference to a general scheme of the Act would not constitute an obiter, dicta which is binding upon this Court on questions of interpretation. A question which never arose before the Supreme Court, which was never argued, which was never considered and which was never decided could not be, therefore, termed as "obiter dicta". In the present case, the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. J. J. Merchant was not considering the issue as to whether the Court has power to extend the time beyond the period prescribed under the provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act or under Order 8, Rule I of the Civil Procedure Code for that matter.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 15 - D B Bhosale - Full Document

Gauhati High Court & Anr vs Kuladhar Phukan & Anr on 22 March, 2002

Before we may embark upon the principal issue for determination it would be appropriate to place on record the stand taken by the Government of Assam. In the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1, the High Court filed a counter-affidavit disputing correctness of the stand taken by the respondent no.1 but the State Government did not choose to file any counter-affidavit. Instead written arguments were filed wherein very clearly and categorically the stand taken by the State Government is that the appointment of respondent no.1 in Assam Legal Services on the post of Deputy Secretary as also on the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer and Joint Secretary, Judicial Department was temporary and until further orders i.e. a purely temporary arrangement. It was "absolutely untrue" that the respondent no.1 was confirmed as a regular member of the Assam Legal Service. The conduct of the respondent no.1 was commented upon by alleging that the respondent no.1 was managing to get the best of both the worlds. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in State of Orissa Vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Ors. (1968) 2 SCR 154, the State Government contended that the respondent no.1 was a member of Assam Judicial Service and his services were handed over outside the cadre 'temporarily and until further orders' and therefore it was open for the High Court to recall the respondent no.1 and post him as Presiding Officer of a District Court. The State Government endorsed the act of the High Court as "unassailable" as the lien of respondent no.1 in his substantive post in his parent service, viz., Assam Judicial Service "still continues". On point of fact, the State Government agreed, that the respondent no.1 had not applied to the APSC with the permission of and under intimation to the High Court while seeking regular appointment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 28 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next