Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 59 (3.66 seconds)
Documents citing Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 19 December, 2003

Idbi Bank Ltd. vs Power Finance Coporation Ltd. And Ors. on 12 May, 2023

45. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (supra) to argue that given the belated stage of the present petition, the matter ought to be decided on merits. Firstly, in the present case, it must be considered that the parties herein are financially sound having adequate resources. There was nothing, therefore, that prevented the parties from approaching appropriate forums and agitating their disputes. Secondly, the case concerned does not act as an authoritative binding precedent which rules that the High Court must, in cases where a delay has been caused, entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - P K Kaurav - Full Document

Poonam Chand Bhandari vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 11 May, 2007

36. Section 90(2) of the J.D.A. Act is to the effect that the State Government can direct the authority to exercise its powers and perform its duties in accordance with the policy framed and the guidelines laid down from time to time. Under this Section, the policy and guidelines can be issued for general application or, for a class persons or area or based on some other criteria a may with stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. This is what was said by the Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Retreat and Towers Limited and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. . The Supreme Court went on to say further that the power conferred by Section 90 cannot be exercised by the Government to give directions in on individual or particular case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - R M Lodha - Full Document

M/S.K.Steamship Agencies Pvt. Ltd vs M/S.Balaji Dekors on 4 July, 2024

), in which there is a reference to the judgments of the Apex Court in Ganga Retreat and Towers Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 12 SCC 91, PTC India Limited Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 4 SCC 603 and State of Rajasthan Vs. J.K. Synthetics Limited, (2011) 12 SCC 518, which hold that the contracts would be amenable to the provisions of law, is Page 283/309 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.2235 of 2021 etc. batch squarely applicable. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsels for CCSP, wherein the payment of demurrage charges is based on a statutory implication in the Port Trusts Act or Airports Authority of India Act, are not applicable as the charges therein are statutory and not contractual.
Madras High Court Cites 187 - Cited by 0 - M Shaffiq - Full Document

M/S N.N. Global Mercantile Private ... vs M/S Indo Unique Flame Ltd. on 25 April, 2023

57. Further, we have already noticed that free consent is indispensable for making an agreement, a contract, under Section 10. Free consent has been defined in Section 14 and it must be read in conjunction with Sections 15 to 18 as Sections 15 to 18 define coercion, undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation, respectively. Now, the result of there being coercion, fraud or misrepresentation in securing the consent of a party, is provided for in Section 19 of the Contract Act. The presence of the three elements results in what is described as a contract voidable at the option of the party, whose consent was so caused. The effect of misrepresentation has been dealt with by this Court in the judgment reported in Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan22, as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 229 - Cited by 104 - K Joseph - Full Document

Mohan Lal Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 August, 2007

In support of these submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions in (1) Ganga Retreat & Towers Limited and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. ; (2) K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. and Ors. ; The Purtapore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and Ors. ; (4) Pyrmont Ltd. and Anr. v. Lucila Schott AIR 1939 Privy Council 74; (5) Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji ; (6) State of Assam and Anr. v. Keshab Prasad Singh and Anr. ; (7) Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad and Anr. v. State of Bombay and Anr. ; (8) State of Punjab and Anr. v. Hari Kishan Sharma ; (9) Sadiq Bakery v. State of A.P. and Ors. ; and (10) Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Noor Mohammad Bagban v. State of Gujarat and Anr. .
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - M Rafiq - Full Document

Larsen And Toubro Ltd. Ecc Division vs Inspector Of Motor Vehicles And Anr. on 13 September, 2006

In support of these submissions, Mr. V.C. Kotwal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, placed reliance on: (1) Smt. Gunwant Kaur and Ors. v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, and Ors. ; (2) Hirday Narain v. Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly ; (3) Century Spinning & Manufacturing Company Limited and Anr. v. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and Anr. ; (4) ABL International Ltd. and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. ; (5) VST Industries Limited v. VST Industries Workers' Union and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 298; (6) Shambhu Prasad Agarwal and Ors. v. Bhola Ra Agarwal (2000) 9 SCC 714; (7) Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil and Ors. ; (8) Ganga Retreat and Towers Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. ; and (9) U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Anr. .
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - J M Panchal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next