Rahul Mehra And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2004
15. The petitioner iterated the following observations of the learned single Judge in Ajay Jadeja (supra), adopting the same as his submissions:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.63 seconds)Documents citing
Ajay Jadeja vs Union Of India And Ors. on 17 September, 2001
Ashish Gupta vs Ibp Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 21 November, 2005
9. In my view it would not be proper to lose sight of the main grievance in the Petition. It is that the principles of natural justice have deliberately been ignored; that no Show Cause notice was issued to the Petitioner and he was not granted an opportunity of remonstrating against the intended decision of terminating his Dealership. The Petitioner does not claim damages or an adjudication of the contractual disputes between the parties. In my view that is the distinguishing feature between the facts of the present case and the observations of the Supreme Court in Amritsar Gas Service where the Court had before it proceedings initiated through a suit and an Award passed thereafter. Writ law has progressed to the extent of bringing even ordinary citizens within its sweep. An erudite discussion on this significant aspect of law can be found in Ajay Jadeja v. Union of India, 2001 VII AD (Delhi) 869.
Everest Enterprises vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. on 30 August, 2006
6. The petitioner has relied on Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. , Ashish Gupta v. IBP Co. Ltd. and Anr; Vinay Construction Co. and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. ; , Allied Motors Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.; , SPS Engineering Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Bharat Filling Station and Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and , Ajay Jadeja v. Union of India and Ors. to contend that the writ petition is maintainable and this Court must exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Karm Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 August, 2010
In interpreting the notification dated
WP(C) Nos.4148 & 4263/2010 Page 18 of 31
11th April 2005 of the MHA, the Punjab and Haryana High Court relied
upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ajay Jadeja v. Union of
India 95 (2002) DLT 14 where it was observed in para 21 as under:
Sorab Singh Gill vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 2010
14. The essence of the pleas of Mr. Mattewal was based on the
definition of education given in a judgment of Delhi High Court in
Ajay Jadeja V. Union of India and others, 95(2002) Delhi Law
Times 14 and relevant paragraph No.21 of the judgment reads as
under:-
Mrsubhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry Of Youth Affairs & Sports on 13 April, 2015
41. Ajay Jadeja v. Union of India & Ors. [95 (2002) DLT 14] Delhi High Court
while dealing with a writ petition challenging the banning of some cricketers as
punitive measure by BCCI, referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court which
observed in 1989: "The word cricket is a synonym for gentlemanliness which
means discipline, fair play, modesty and high standard of morality." In this case
the court has explained several aspects of monopoly and its impact, in para 31.
Shalabh Srivastava vs Union Of India Throu Secy. Ministry Of ... on 21 January, 2013
4. On behalf of petitioner, lengthy arguments were advanced in support of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that as per settled law, the High Court can issue appropriate writs or directions even against persons or bodies who are not State. For this, reliance was placed upon the two judgments of the Supreme Court noted above as well as upon two judgments of Delhi High Court - Ajay Jadeja Vs. Union of India & Ors., 95 (2002) DLT 14 and Rahul Mehra & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 4 Comp LJ 268 (Del).
1