Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (3.61 seconds)
Documents citing Talcher Municipality vs Talcher Regulated Mkt. Committee And ... on 28 July, 2004

Shifa College Of Pharmacy vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 19 November, 2020

In Talcher Municipality v. Talcher Regulated Market Committee [(2004) 6 SCC 178] this Court held: (SCC p. 181, para 14) "14. The power to regulate buying and selling of agricultural produce must be interpreted in the context in which the same has been used. Each person, whoever is engaged in buying and selling of the agricultural produce in the market shall be subject to the regulation for which the same has been enacted. The expression 'regulation' is a term which is capable of being interpreted broadly. It may in a given case amount to prohibition.
Karnataka High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

Arun Kumar Jagatramka vs Jindal Steel And Power Ltd. on 15 March, 2021

69 The IBC has made a provision for ineligibility under Section 29A which operates during the course of the CIRP. A similar provision is engrafted in Section 35(1)(f) which forms a part of the liquidation provisions contained in Chapter III as well. In the context of the statutory linkage provided by the provisions of Section 230 of the Act of 2013 with Chapter III of the IBC, where a scheme is proposed of a company which is in liquidation under the IBC, it would be far-fetched to hold that the ineligibilities which attach under Section 35(1)(f) read with Section 29A would not apply when Section 230 is sought to be invoked. principles [referring to the principle of harmonious construction] have also been applied in resolving a conflict between two different Acts” and providing the following examples – “Jogendra Lal Saha v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 654 (Sections 82 and 83 of the Forest Act, 1927 are special provisions which prevail over the provisions in the Sale of Goods Act ); Jasbir Singh v. Vipin Kumar Jaggi, (2001) 8 SCC 289 (Section 64 of NDPS Act will prevail over section 307 CrPC 1974 as it is a special provision in a Special Act which is also later); P.V. Hemlatha v. Kattam Kandi Puthiya Maliackal Saheeda, (2002) 5 SCC 548 (conflict between section 23 of the Travancore Cochin High Court Act and section 98(3) Civil Procedure Code resolved by holding the latter to be special law); Talchar Municipality v. Talcher Regulated Market Committee, (2004) 6 SCC 178 (Section 4(4) of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 was held to prevail over section 295 of the Orissa Municipalities Act, 1950 as the former was a special provision and also started with a non-obstante clause); and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc, (2005) 2 SCC 145 (Letters Patent and rules made under it constitute special law for the High Court concerned and are not displaced by the general provisions of the Civil Procedure Code)” 59 PART D Such an interpretation would result in defeating the provisions of the IBC and must be eschewed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 42 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Aircel Digilink India Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 6 January, 2005

21. The principles laid in various decisions of the Supreme Court cited above are quite explicit. TRAI Act is a special law, which will govern, and it overtakes general law, i.e., Arbitration Act, 1996. Also, TRAI Act, being the later Act (TDSAT was constituted by the Amending Act of 2000) has precedence over the earlier Act which is the Arbitration Act, 1996. The principle of generalia specialibus non derogant has been referred to in a judgment of Supreme Court in Talcher Municipality v. Talcher Regulated Market Committee and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 178. Consent cannot confer jurisdiction when there is none. Dominant public interest requires that all disputes in telecom sector which includes broadcasting and cable TV should be within the exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT. In these circumstances, public policy demands that jurisdiction of Tribunal like TDSAT should be exclusive and arbitration agreement not to have any applicability.
Telecom Disputes Settlement Tribunal Cites 61 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Mohanlal vs State on 5 April, 2011

4.1 Learned counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Talcher Municipality v. Talcher Regulated Market Committee and Anr. [(2004) 6 SCC 178], wherein the Municipality had constructed a market in exercise of its power under section 295 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, and the Market Committee had sent a requisition stating that as agricultural produces were being bought and sold in that market, municipality was liable to transfer the market to the Market Committee. The Apex Court made following pertinent observations:
Gujarat High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - D H Waghela - Full Document
1   2 3 Next