Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 706 (2.25 seconds)
Documents citing Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc vs Vikram Cement Etc on 8 July, 2008

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

As existence of a 'jurisdictional fact' is the sine qua non for the exercise of power, the CERC can only proceed with the case and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law if the jurisdictional fact exists. (Arun Kumar v. Union of India:(2007) 1 SCC 732; Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58; Carona Ltd. v. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons, (2007) 8 SCC 559). The jurisdictional facts necessary for the CERC to _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Judgment in Appeal Nos.348, 371 & 400 of 2025 Page 72 of 178 exercise its powers of adjudication of the dispute, under Section 79(1)(f) read with Section 79(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, is firstly that the dispute involves a generating company, other than those owned or controlled by the Central Government; secondly that such a generating company enters into or otherwise has a composite scheme for generation and sale of electricity in more than one State; and thirdly, that the dispute is in regard to matters connected with clause (b) of Section 79(1) ie matters connected with the regulation of tariff of such a generating company.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 188 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Bhadreshwar Vidyut Private Limited vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 31 May, 2024

As existence of a 'jurisdictional fact' is the sine qua non for the exercise of power, the authority can proceed with the case and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law if the jurisdictional fact exists. Once the authority has jurisdiction in the matter, on existence of 'jurisdictional facts', it can decide the 'fact in issue' or 'adjudicatory fact'. A wrong decision on 'fact in issue' or on 'adjudicatory fact' would not make the decision of the authority without jurisdiction or vulnerable provided essential or fundamental fact as to the existence of jurisdiction is present. (Arun Kumar v. Union of India:(2007) 1 SCC 732; Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58; Carona Ltd. v. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons, (2007) 8 SCC 559) The law does not permit any court/tribunal/authority/forum to usurp jurisdiction on any ground whatsoever, in case such an authority does not have jurisdiction on the subject-matter, for the reason that it is not an objection as to the place of suing; "it is an objection going to the nullity of the order on the ground of want of jurisdiction". Thus, for assumption of jurisdiction by a court or a tribunal, existence of jurisdictional facts is a condition precedent. But once such jurisdictional fact is found to exist, the court or tribunal has power to decide on the adjudicatory facts or facts in issue.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 127 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

K K Spun India Limited,Delhi vs Dcit Central Circle-2 New Delhi, ... on 3 January, 2025

15. A party cannot be permitted to "blow hot-blow cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate". Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself. This rule is applied to ensure equity, however, it must not be applied in such a manner so as to violate the principles of what is right and of good conscience. [Vide Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao [AIR 1956 SC 593] , CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm Muar [AIR 1965 SC 1216] , Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement [(2008) 14 SCC 58 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 706 : AIR 2009 SC 713] , Pradeep Oil 32 ITA Nos.2005 to 2008/DEL/2024 Corpn. v. MCD [(2011) 5 SCC 270 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 712 : AIR 2011 SC 1869] , Cauvery Coffee Traders v. Hornor Resources (International) Co. Ltd. [(2011) 10 SCC 420 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 685] and V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer [(2012) 12 SCC 133 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 136 : JT (2012) 9 SC 260] .]
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahanth Ram Kinkar Das vs State on 17 January, 2017

"61. From the above case law, it is clear that it is open to the petitioner to withdraw a petition filed by him. Normally, a court of law would not prevent him from withdrawing his petition. But if such withdrawal is without the leave of the court, it would mean that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting or continuing the proceedings and he abandons his claim. In such cases, obviously, public policy requires that he should not start a fresh round of litigation and the court will not allow him to reagitate the claim which he himself had given up earlier."
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Topkhana Desh Grah Niraman Sah vs J D A Jaipur & Anr on 8 May, 2012

Learned senior counsel has also taken us to the decisions of the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla & Ors. Vs. Vikram Cement & Ors. (supra) with respect to scope of interference under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, the Apex Court has laid down that relief exercising power under Article 227 can be granted by this Court to meet the ends of justice in equity. In the instant case, we find that no relief can be granted. Entertaining prayer made at this stage to question validity of acquisition, would amount to gross abuse of process of the Court. This question has not been raised before. Thus, we are not inclined to grant any relief nor the factual situation envisages so in the instant case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Sh. Chaman Lal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 13 January, 2010

12. As ruled by the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla & others v. Vikram Cement & others, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 706, constructive res judicata would come into being and would have application if in the earlier proceedings, an issue raised in the subsequent proceedings has been discussed on merits and adjudicated and attained finality between the parties. As in the instant case, selection for the post of Head Regional Centre was not adjudicated earlier by the Tribunal on this issue, which is now being taken in the present proceedings, the OA is not barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. Hence, the objection stands overruled.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 211 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

K K Spun India Limited,Delhi vs Dcit Central Circle-2 New Delhi, ... on 3 January, 2025

15. A party cannot be permitted to "blow hot-blow cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate". Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself. This rule is applied to ensure equity, however, it must not be applied in such a manner so as to violate the principles of what is right and of good conscience. [Vide Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao [AIR 1956 SC 593] , CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm Muar [AIR 1965 SC 1216] , Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement [(2008) 14 SCC 58 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 706 : AIR 2009 SC 713] , Pradeep Oil 32 ITA Nos.2005 to 2008/DEL/2024 Corpn. v. MCD [(2011) 5 SCC 270 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 712 : AIR 2011 SC 1869] , Cauvery Coffee Traders v. Hornor Resources (International) Co. Ltd. [(2011) 10 SCC 420 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 685] and V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer [(2012) 12 SCC 133 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 136 : JT (2012) 9 SC 260] .]
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next