Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.33 seconds)

Go-Go International And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 15 September, 2004

19. A further judgment referred to by learned Senior Counsel again on the basis of the stand of the respondents having relied upon the same was in the case of M.K. Jain and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., 2002 VII AD (DELHI) 513. The judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court and the facts were similar to the extent that there was a ban in transfer in respect of certain items imposed during currency of the quota. In fact, it was not even disputed by learned Senior Counsel that the facts are apposite, but the contention was that the plea of vested right was neither claimed nor argued. A reference in this behalf was placed on para 8 of the judgment to show that the impugned notice was challenged on the ground of not being in public interest, contrary to principles of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and the rule of audi alteram partem. It was further assailed on the ground of lack of authority of law and was alleged to be a mala fide exercise of the power.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Gokaldas Images Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 7 December, 2004

21. Learned Counsel for the respondents placed strong reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in M.K. Jain and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. - 2003 (160) E.L.T. 21 (Del.) = 2002 VII AD (DELHI) 513 to support the contention that it is for the Administrator of quotas to decide on the precise timing and manner of implementation of the quota to achieve a particular objective. The export of the quota items are matters of bilateral trade and the quota-administering authority is best equipped to decide how to fully utilise the quota.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Gokaldas Images Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 7 December, 2004

21. Learned Counsel for the respondents placed strong reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in M.K. Jain and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. 2003 (160) E.L.T. 21 (Del.) : 2002 VII AD (Delhi) 513 to support the contention that it is for the Administrator of quotas to decide on the precise* timing and manner of implementation of the quota to achieve a particular objective. The export of the quota items are matters of bilateral trade and the quota-administering authority is best equipped to decide how to fully utilise the quota.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Gokaldas Images Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 7 December, 2004

21. Learned Counsel for the respondents placed strong reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in M.K. Jain and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. 2002 VII AD (DELHI) 513 to support the contention that it is for the Administrator of quotas to decide on the precise timing and manner of implementation of the quota to achieve a particular objective. The export of the quota items are matters of bilateral trade and the quota administering authority is best equipped to decide how to fully utilise the quota.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 8 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1