Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 64 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr vs Bpl Mobile Cellular Ltd. & Ors on 14 May, 2008

Dr. Sanjay Kumar Bhat And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 31 May, 2024

30. This Court is also aware about the judgment and order rendered in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another Vs. BPL Mobile Cellular Limited and Others (Supra), wherein, it has been held that ordinarily the word 'prescribed would mean prescribed by Rules.' When the word prescribed is not defined, the same would mean that prescribed in-accordance with law and not otherwise. Paragraph 45 of the above-said judgment is reproduced hereinunder:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The National Small Industries ... vs M/S Mysore Lamp Works Limited on 10 December, 2025

28.No doubt, the trial court in the impugned order has expressed in para 6(a) as under, "6(a). Therefore, it is clear that accepting the said sum, the plaintiff had agreed to withdraw the suit and there is nothing on record even to indicate that the 1st defendant had ever agreed to continue the suits as against the other defendants. It is an undisputed fact that the 1st defendant assumes the character of principal borrower and the 2nd and 3rd defendants are sureties, co-obligants and guarantors and when the claim is settled as against the principal borrower namely the 1st defendant, it has to be held that the suit as against the other co-borrowers or the guarantors also deemed to have been settled and the suit cannot be made continued as against them for the remaining suit claim amount because the plaintiff has accepted the amount in full and final settlement of his claim relating to the said transactions. The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant relied on the decision reported in (2008) 13 SCC 597 in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another vs. BPL Mobile Cellular Limited and others'. Wherein it is
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - V Srishananda - Full Document

Vinod Jasmatbhai Rupapara vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2022

Therefore, apart from the recovery being grossly belated and initiated after more than 12 years after the petitioner had secured such benefits, even if it is a mistake, the same cannot be corrected after such a long time. The order, therefore, on this count also needs to be quashed and set aside. The judgement in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. BPL Cellular Ltd., is not applicable as discussed hereinabove.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Ms Raaj Construction Co Through One Of ... vs Water Resources Department on 15 December, 2014

8. It appears that the agreement dated 05.11.1999 does not  contain a specific clause for price escalation.  The petitioner has relied  on letter dated 30.07.1998 whereby a decision was taken to make a  provision for price escalation however, vide letter dated 18.08.1999  the said letter was recalled.  Admittedly, the agreement was executed  with   the   petitioner   on   05.11.1999   that   is,   after   the   letter   dated  30.07.1998 was withdrawn.   Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner  cannot claim price escalation in terms of letter dated 30.07.1998.  The  4 reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in  ""Bharat   Sanchar   Nigam   Limited   and   Anr.   Vs.   BPL   Mobile   Cellular   Limited   and   Ors."  (supra)  is   also   misplaced.     In   the   said   case,   a  challenge was made to the applicability of a subsequent notification  whereby the price escalation clause was withdrawn, without notice to  the petitioner. The same is not the case here.  From the materials on  record   it   appears   that   it   has   been   observed   that   part   payment   on  account of price escalation has been illegally made to the petitioner  and a recommendation has been issued for recovery of excess amount  paid to the petitioner.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Patel Ushaben Kamleshbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 28 September, 2022

5 Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates, as far as the first issue with regard to the legality of the recovery order dated 01.04.2021 is concerned, perusal of the impugned order indicates that reference is made to a communication dated 19.03.2015, letter dated 16.08.2019 and letter dated 18.07.2020. As far as the communication dated 19.03.2015 is concerned, the same has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2015 in Special Civil Application No. 6549 of 2015. The other communications of 2019 and 2020 indicated that recovery proceedings are to be initiated in respect of those lecturers to whom the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission had been granted without approval of the State Government. Such lecturers have not initiated any legal proceedings in the Court of Law. What is evident on reading the order of recovery is that it seeks to recover the benefits granted to the petitioner of the 6th Pay Commission which the petitioner has earned for having worked for a period from 01.01.2006 to 2009. Independent of the communications referred to in the impugned order, even if the stand of the respondents is accepted that they were paid erroneously for which reliance has been placed on a communication dated 20.07.2019 and February 2015, what is evident is that, in case of the petitioner the payscales were granted and the same was verified by the verification authorities as is evident from the pay verification communication dated 27.05.2011 Page 12 of 16 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 30 20:32:51 IST 2022 C/SCA/6312/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/09/2022 (Annexure'E', page 32 of the petition). Therefore, apart from the recovery being grossly belated and initiated after more than 12 years after the petitioner had secured such benefits, even if it is a mistake, the same cannot be corrected after such a long time. The order, therefore, on this count also needs to be quashed and set aside. The judgement in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. BPL Cellular Ltd., is not applicable as discussed hereinabove.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Mayurdhvajsinh Gunvantsinh Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 19 October, 2022

5 Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates, as far as the first issue with regard to the legality of the recovery order dated 01.04.2021 is concerned, perusal of the impugned order indicates that reference is made to a communication dated 19.03.2015, letter dated 16.08.2019 and letter dated 18.07.2020. As far as the communication dated 19.03.2015 is concerned, the same has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2015 in Special Civil Application No. 6549 of 2015. The other communications of 2019 and 2020 indicated that recovery proceedings are to be initiated in respect of those lecturers to whom the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission had been granted without approval of the State Government. Such lecturers have not initiated any legal proceedings in the Court of Law. What is evident on reading the order of recovery is that it seeks to recover the benefits granted to the petitioner of the 6 th Pay Page 11 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 19 21:19:08 IST 2022 C/SCA/1052/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2022 Commission which the petitioner has earned for having worked for a period from 01.01.2006 to 2009. Independent of the communications referred to in the impugned order, even if the stand of the respondents is accepted that they were paid erroneously for which reliance has been placed on a communication dated 20.07.2019 and February 2015, what is evident is that, in case of the petitioner the payscales were granted and the same was verified by the verification authorities as is evident from the pay verification communication dated 27.05.2011 (Annexure'E', page 32 of the petition). Therefore, apart from the recovery being grossly belated and initiated after more than 12 years after the petitioner had secured such benefits, even if it is a mistake, the same cannot be corrected after such a long time. The order, therefore, on this count also needs to be quashed and set aside. The judgement in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. BPL Cellular Ltd., is not applicable as discussed hereinabove.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Techma Engineering Enterprises Pvt. ... vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 17 March, 2021

In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited And Another (supra) the Supreme Court considers novation of contract and is of the view that, circulars/letters cannot ipso facto be given effect to unless they become part of the contract. If the parties were ad idem as regards terms of the contract, any change in the tariff could not be made unilaterally. Any novation in the contract is required to be done on the same terms as are required for entering into a valid and concluded contract.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - D Basak - Full Document

Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu . on 6 January, 2014

43. Section 45 of the Act 1959 provides for appointment of an Executive Officer, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. The term ’prescribed’ has not been defined under the Act. Prescribed means prescribed by rules. If the word ’prescribed’ has not been defined specifically, the same would mean to be prescribed in accordance with law and not otherwise. Therefore, a particular power can be exercised only if a specific enacting law or statutory rules have been framed for that purpose. (See: Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527; Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1963 SC 1083; Maharashtra SRTC v. Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service Warora & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 1926; and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. & Ors., (2008) 13 SCC 597).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 64 - Cited by 5 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

The Managing Director vs M/S.Siemens Limited on 14 July, 2017

21. Learned Arbitrator after factually considering the correspondence particularly in Ex.R.6 to Ex.R.10 held those correspondence does not contain any intrinsic materials as to the payment of differential cost as has been provided in the Office Order Ex.R.11 and finally relying upon the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., & Nr. vs. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd & Ors [2008 (8) SCALE 106] wherein it is held that Office Orders and Circulars are issued basically for internal and official use and unless the relevant contents thereof are respectively made known to the parties to the agreement and/or contracts, it cannot be presumed that they are generally known to them and factually found that there is no evidence on record to indicate that SIPCOT has informed the Claimant in categorical terms that the terms of the Departmental Circulars, Office Orders, etc., would be applicable in the matter of calculation of differential land cost and the circumstances contemplated in the Office Orders are relevant. It is crystal clear tht the office circulars and Orders are basically for internal and official use and unless the relevant contents thereof are respectively made known to the parties through agreements it cannot be presumed that these are generally known to them. Page 27 / 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.41 of 2018 and A.No.456 of 2018
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next