Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 161 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs M/S National Construction ... on 9 January, 1996

M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji ... vs Central Transmission Utility Of India ... on 18 March, 2024

None of the judgments, in the long list of cases where Courts/Tribunals were called upon to exercise restraint against interference with invocation of bank guarantees (ie in (1) U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd., (1988) 1 SCC 174; (2) United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India, (1981) 2 SCC 766; (3) Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineerings Works (P) Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC 450; (4) SBI v. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 293; (5) State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Company, Bombay (1996) 1 SCC 735; (6) Ansal Engineering Projects Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 450; (7) BSES Ltd. v. Fenner India Ltd., (2006) 2 SCC 728; (8) Gujarat Maritime Board v. L&T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. (2016) 10 SCC 46; (9) Vinitec Electronics Private Ltd. v. HCL Infosystems Ltd., (2008) 1 SCC 544; (10) Adani Agri Fresh v. Mehboob Sharif, (2016) 14 SCC 517; (11) Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co., (2007) 8 SCC 110; (12) A.P. Pollution Control Board v. CCL Products (India) Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 669; (13)Standard Chartered Bank v. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd., (2020) 13 SCC 574, and (14) U.P. State Sugar Corpn. v. Sumac International Ltd) were even brought to the notice of this Tribunal in 'Vaayu Renewable Energy (Kaveri) Put.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Punj Lloyd Insulations Ltd. vs State Bank Of India And Anr. on 27 April, 2006

In Svenska Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome , Larson & Toubro Ltd. v. Maharashtra SEB , Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd. v. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) (P) Ltd. , National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Flowmore (P) Ltd. , State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co. , Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. v. Tarapore & Co. as also in U.P. State Sugar Corporation. v. Sumac International Ltd. (1997) 1 SCC 568 the same principle has been laid down and reiterated.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - S Kumar - Full Document

Interior'S India vs Balmer Lawrie And Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 12 January, 2006

In Svenska Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome , Larson & Toubro Ltd. v. Maharashtra SEB , Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd. V. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) (P) Ltd. , National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Flowmore (P) Ltd. , State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co. , Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. v. Tarapore & Co. as also in U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Sumac International Ltd. the same principle has been laid down and reiterated.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

B.R. Vasudevamurthy S/O. H.D. ... vs Hon'Ble Minister For Revenue, ... on 22 December, 2006

37. Since the lands in question were vested with the State Government under Section 1(4) of the Inam Abolition Act and in view of the rights conferred upon the inamdars under Section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act to claim occupancy rights upon the lands in question and the application of the inamdars in that connection was pending consideration before the Land Tribunal, the State Government had no jurisdiction to exercise its power and grant the inam lands in favour of the Sangha under the Land Grant Rules. More over, the above legal contention in this regard was neither urged on behalf of the inamdars nor considered in the earlier writ proceedings. Hence, the legal contention urged by the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. U.L. Bhat that the decision in the earlier Writ Petition and Writ Appeal referred to supra operates as res judicata, cannot be accepted by us. The decisions of the Apex Court (Sajjadanashin Sayed v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and Ors.), (Dharam Dutt and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), (P.M.A. Metropolitan v. M.M. Martho), (State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co. Bombay), and ILR (16) Calcutta 98 (Chand Kour and Anr. v. Partab Singh and Ors.) relied upon in this connection by Mr. V. Laxminarayana are squarely applicable to the case on hand.
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Inox Green Energy Services Ltd & Ors vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 24 February, 2023

In BSES Ltd. v. Fenner India Ltd., (2006) 2 SCC 728, the Supreme Court held that the general rule of non-interference against invocation of a bank guarantee, and its exceptions, had been reiterated in several of its judgments including U.P. State Sugar Corpn. v. Sumac International Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 568; State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co., (1996) 1 SCC 735; United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India, (1981) 2 SCC 766; and Centax (India) Ltd. v. Vinmar Impex Inc., (1986) 4 SCC 136; and that, in U.P. State Sugar Corpn. v. Sumac International Ltd. [(1997) 1 SCC 568, the Supreme Court had correctly declared that the law was "settled".
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 44 - Cited by 1 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Continental Construction Ltd. And Anr. vs Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. on 12 January, 2006

In Svenska Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome , Larson & Toubro Ltd. v. Maharashtra SEB , Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd. V. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) (P) Ltd. , National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Flowmore (P) Ltd. , State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co. , Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. v. Tarapore & Co. as also in U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Sumac International Ltd. the same principle has been laid down and reiterated.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 20 - S Kumar - Full Document

L. Sundaram And Ravichandran vs Lakshmanan (Died), L. Sadagopal, ... on 31 October, 2002

27. The next question is whether the ex parte decree in O.S.No.612/64 would bind the sons also. The learned Counsel, in this connection, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VS. M/S NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BOMBAY AND ANOTHER (1996(2) SCJ 58) where it has been held that, "in view of the fact that the words "has been heard and finally decided" in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the bar of res judicata would apply only if the matter directly and substantially in issue in former suit has been heard and finally decided. If the former suit is dismissed without any adjudication of the matter in issue merely on a technical ground of non-joinder, that cannot operate as res judicata."
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

North Karanpura Transmission Company ... vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 23 February, 2023

In BSES Ltd. v. Fenner India Ltd., (2006) 2 SCC 728, the Supreme Court held that the general rule of non-interference against invocation of a bank guarantee, and its exceptions, had been reiterated in several of its judgments including U.P. State Sugar Corpn. v. Sumac International Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 568; State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co., (1996) 1 SCC 735; United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India, (1981) 2 SCC 766; and Centax (India) Ltd. v. Vinmar Impex Inc., (1986) 4 SCC 136; and Page 9 of 71 Order in IA No. 599 of 2022 in Appeal No. 188 of 2022 that, in U.P. State Sugar Corpn. v. Sumac International Ltd. [(1997) 1 SCC 568, the Supreme Court had correctly declared that the law was "settled".
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Intertoll Ics Cecons O And M Company P. ... vs National Highways Authority Of India on 16 January, 2006

[See: Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Anr. , State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co. , Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. v. Tarapore and Co. and Anr. , and Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. ]. It is not necessary for me to be deterred by this controversy. The guiding principle laid down by the Supreme Court in a series of judgments noted above, which are binding precedents, is that the if the bank guarantee is unconditional and in absolute terms, the bank is under obligation to honour its commitments under the said bank guarantee. It is, therefore, this aspect which would have been examined by me in the instant case.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. And ... vs Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. on 24 November, 2005

In Svenska Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome , Larson & Toubro Ltd. v. Maharashtra SEB , Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd. V. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) (P) Ltd. , National Thermal Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Flowmore (P) Ltd. , State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co. , Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. v. Tarapore & Co. as also in U.P. State Sugar Corpn. v. Sumac International Ltd. the same principle has been laid down and reiterated.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 33 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next