Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 143 (2.39 seconds)
Documents citing New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 January, 1981

Airports Authority Of India vs Hotel Leelaventure Ltd. on 15 July, 2016

11.4. The respondent has relied upon Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co. (supra), Sushila Devi v. Hari Singh (supra), Jagatjit Distilling & Allied Industries v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. (supra), D. Devi Bhagat v. J.B. Advani & Co. (supra) and Sharda Mahajan v. Maple Trading International P. Ltd. (supra) which are not applicable to the present case and have been wrongly applied by the learned Arbitrator:
Delhi High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 4 - J R Midha - Full Document

New Delhi Municipal Council vs M/S Prominent Hotels Limited on 11 September, 2015

Alopi Parshad & Sons v. Union of India (supra)  Panna Lal v. State of Rajasthan (supra)  State Bank of Haryana v. Jage Ram (supra)  Har Shankar v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (supra)  New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. v. State of Bihar (supra),  C. Bepathumma v. V.S. Kadambolithaya (supra),  Assistant Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter (supra),  Puravankara Projects Ltd. v. Hotel Venus International (supra),  Bharti Cellular Limited v. Union of India (supra),  Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Golden Chariot Airport, (supra),  Track Innovations India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India, (supra),  C.J. International Hotels Ltd. v. N.D.M.C., (supra),  State of Haryana and Ors. v. Khalsa Motors Ltd. (supra),  B. Sharma Rao H. Ganeshmal and Anr. v. Head Quarters Asstt. and Ors. (supra),  Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (supra)  Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College (supra)  Corporation of Calicut v. K Sreenivasan (supra)  Ratlam Straw Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (supra)  Rampur Distillery and Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (supra)  M/s Maharaji Education Trust v. Punjab and Sind Bank RFA 78-2014 Page 149 of 156 (supra)  Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (supra), 30.27. In view of the clear expression of law recorded in judgements discussed above, without any divergence of view whatsoever, I have no other alternative but to conclude that the Licensee's suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction was not maintainable and it amounts to gross abuse and misuse of the process of law. The submissions advanced by learned senior counsel for the Licensee asserting the maintainability of the suit are devoid of any merit and are rejected.
Delhi High Court Cites 142 - Cited by 11 - J R Midha - Full Document

Ghulam Nabi Mir vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 29 May, 2023

In New Bihari Biddi Company (supra), the Supreme Court held that/while it was true that a person cannot be debarred from enforcing his fundamental rights on the ground of estoppel or waiver but the aforesaid principles which prohibit a party to a transaction from approbating a part of its condition and reprobating the rest is different from the doctrine of estoppel or waiver. In the present facts and circumstances, as noted above, in my view, firstly, Condition No. 4 prima facie, does not suffer from any arbitrariness or irrationality, though it could have been happily worded and made more precise.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - W S Nargal - Full Document

Mi2C Security Facilities Pvt Ltd vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 23 October, 2018

9. Relying upon the decision of this Court in City Montessori School v. State of U.P, New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. v. State of Bihar and R.N. Gosain v. YashpalDhir, this Court has in ShyamTelelink Ltd. v. Union of India held that no one can approbate and reprobate and anyone who has accepted with full knowledge or notice of facts, benefits under a transaction which he might have rejected or contested, cannot question the transaction or take up an inconsistent position qua the same.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - V K Rao - Full Document

Bhagwati Foundation And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Mcd And Ors. on 31 October, 2006

In New Bihar Bidi Leaves Company and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., a challenge was laid to the constitutional validity of certain rules framed by the State of Bihar under the Bihar Kendu Leaves(Control of Trade) Act, 1973; Clause 13 and Clause 4(bb) of the tender notice and of the statutory agreement notified by the Bihar Government in the Bihar Government Gazzette and also the notices of demand issued under the impugned provisions demanding royalty from the petitioners in respect of the undelivered quantity of Kendu leaves.
Delhi High Court Cites 174 - Cited by 0 - G Mittal - Full Document

Ceat Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ceat Tyres ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And 5 Others on 16 March, 2020

22. A plain reading of this Clause clearly indicates that when the land or any part thereof is required for public purpose, the Petitioner- Company, on being called upon by the Government in writing, is bound to transfer such land to the Government. In consideration of salgaonkar 23 of 27 wp 2830 of 2016 final.doc such transfer the Government is liable to pay to the Petitioner- Company a sum equal to the amount of compensation awarded under the said Act and paid by the Company in respect of land so transferred including the percentage awarded under Section 23(2) of the said Act together with costs of development, value of any strucvture and other components specified in clause 5 of the Sanad and as estimated by the Executive Engineer. The Petitioner-Company having accepted the allotment of the land under the Sanad is bound by the terms and conditions stipulated in the Sanad. The law in this regard is well settled. A reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in New Bihar Biri Leaves Company and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors.(1981) 1 SCC 537 wherein it is observed thus:-
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A Prabhudessai - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next