Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Dlf Limited vs Competition Commission Of India on 11 February, 2015

The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu By Its Chief ... on 9 December, 2016

54. At this stage, we may also refer to the scope of certain aspects which have been highlighted by Mr. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka. According to him, the protective, preclusive or ouster clauses are to be construed strictly. He has relied on the classic text of Administrative Law by Sir William 55 Wade (9th Edn.) wherein it has been said that “… first it must be stressed that there is a presumption against any restriction of the supervisory powers of the court”. He has also relied upon case of R. v. Medical Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore32 wherein Denning LJ said that “I find it very well settled that the remedy by certiorari is never to be taken away by any statute except by the most clear and explicit words.” Lord Reid in the Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission33 has recalled that:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 77 - Cited by 8 - D Misra - Full Document

Sankarda Sanyukt Kheti Sahkari Mandali ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 24 March, 2015

(See : Anisminic Limited V. Foreign Compensation Commission, (1969) 1 All.E.R. 208 and Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta & Brothers, AIR 1971 SC 1558). It would thus appear that the competent authority would have to form the requisite opinion without committing any of these errors and then an order, which is based upon an opinion which is vitiated by any of such errors, would be clearly in exercise of jurisdiction.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

72/2011 - Sunil Bansal & Others vs M/S Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. & ... on 26 October, 2015

39. On the issue of retrospective effect of the Act, it was argued that the terms of the agreement, qua the sale of residential units between JAL and the Informants in Case 72 of 2011, Case No. 34 of 2012 and Case No. 53 of 2012, were agreed by and between the allottees and JAL at the time of bookings which were made in the years 2007, 2006 and 2007 respectively, i.e. much prior to coming into force of section 4 of the Act. Hence, section 4 of the Act, being prospective in nature, could not be applied to such terms and conditions in the aforementioned cases. To substantiate, reference was made to the Hon'ble Competition Appellate Tribunal's order in M/s DLF v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. wherein it was observed that mere presence of onerous clauses in an agreement, voluntarily entered into, cannot amount to an abuse of section 4(2)(a) of the Act.
Competition Commission of India Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Anil Kumar Dubey vs Pradeep Kumar Shukla on 25 January, 2017

40. The word "jurisdiction" is a verbal cast of many colours. Jurisdiction originally seems to have had the meaning which Lord Baid ascribed to it in the matter of Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission 8, namely, the entitlement "to enter upon the enquiry in question". If there was an entitlement to enter upon an inquiry into the question, then any subsequent error could only be 8 (1969) 2 AC 147 32 regarded as an error within the jurisdiction.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 7 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Bhupesh Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 16 October, 2015

An ouster clause confines judicial review in respect of actions falling outside the jurisdiction of the authority taking such action but precludes challenge to such action on the ground of an error committed in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the authority because such an action cannot be said to be an action without jurisdiction. An ouster clause attaching finality to a determination, therefore, does oust certiorari to some extent and it will be effective in ousting the power of the court to review the decision of an inferior tribunal by certiorari if the inferior tribunal has not acted without jurisdiction and has merely made an error of law which does not affect its jurisdiction and if its decision is not a nullity for some reason such as breach of rule of natural justice. [See Administrative Law, H.W.R. Wade, (6th Edn.), pp. 724-26; Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission; S.E. Asia Fire Bricks v. Non-Metallic Mineral 11 Products Mfg. Employees Union.] * * *
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, ... vs Dict, Bhubaneswar on 21 April, 2017

This emphatic statement of law, in the absence of issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) by the Revenue, would, therefore, inure to the benefit of the assessee, even though as noticed above, we are not impressed by the contention that he was not aware of the proceedings under Section 143 for the assessment year 2009-10. However, when the statute makes it imperative that notice under Section 143 (2) is to be issued, the omission or failure would then hit at the root of the jurisdiction applying the principles enunciated in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, ... vs Dict, Bhubaneswar on 6 July, 2017

However, when the statute makes it imperative that notice under Section 143 (2) is to be issued, the omission or failure would then hit at the root of the jurisdiction applying the principles enunciated in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1