Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 159 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ... vs State Of ... on 24 April, 2017

M/S.Rali Engineering Works vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director on 7 April, 2022

39.Since the respondents No.1 and 2 have not followed the settled procedure for blacklisting the petitioner as laid down by the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in (1)Gorkha Security Services vs Government (NCT of Delhi) and others, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105; (2)Kulja Industries Limited vs Chief General Manager and others, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731; (3)Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited vs 28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18262 of 2019 State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2021)1 SCC 804; (4)Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Limited and another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2020) 18 SCC 550; and UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India and another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551, the impugned show cause notice, dated 05.01.2018 and the consequential blacklisting order, dated 02.08.2019 has to be quashed and the Writ Petition will have to be allowed.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

The Art Gallery (Tag) vs The State Of Bihar on 16 November, 2021

17. As regards the order of blacklisting of the petitioners/company being bad on the ground that the same has been made permanent in nature, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project, BSNL reported in 2014 (14) SCC 731, has held that an order of permanent debarment is unjustified and further the case of M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that an order of blacklisting beyond three years or maximum of five years was disproportionate.
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A K Sinha - Full Document

M/S.Rali Engineering Works vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director on 7 April, 2022

39.Since the respondents No.1 and 2 have not followed the settled procedure for blacklisting the petitioner as laid down by the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in (1)Gorkha Security Services vs Government (NCT of Delhi) and others, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105; (2)Kulja Industries Limited vs Chief General Manager and others, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731; (3)Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited vs 28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18262 of 2019 State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2021)1 SCC 804; (4)Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Limited and another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2020) 18 SCC 550; and UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India and another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551, the impugned show cause notice, dated 05.01.2018 and the consequential blacklisting order, dated 02.08.2019 has to be quashed and the Writ Petition will have to be allowed.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

Karamjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 26 March, 2025

7. A bare perusal of the above stated settled principle of law in the issue makes it clear that the impugned orders of revising the pay of the petitioner(s) have been passed in violation of the settled principle of law in Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd through its Secretary/Mahaprandhak and another vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, 2016(12) SCC 204, decided on 17.05.2016 and in Civil Appeal No. 9417 of 2019 titled as M/s Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and another vs. State of U.P. and another 2019 (12) JT 283, decided on 13.12.2019.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

M/S Anod Pharma Private Limited Thru. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 17 March, 2021

Sri Seth, further submitted that in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit dated 02.12.2019, filed by the State, in para 9, it has been specifically stated that a case of similar nature of M/s. Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Another vs. State of U.P. & Another, is pending before Hon'ble Apex Court, and now the same has been allowed, as such, the similar benefit is liable to be extended to the present petitioner i.e. M/s Anod Pharmaceutical Private Ltd.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next