Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.40 seconds)
Glorious Investment Limited vs Dunlop International Limited & Anr on 4 November, 2025 cites

Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs P. N. Sharma And Another on 9 December, 1964

1956 Cri LJ 326], Engg. Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd. [AIR 1963 SC 874], Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma [AIR 1965 SC 1595], Rama Rao v. Narayan [(1969) 1 SCC 167 : AIR 1969 SC 724], State of H.P. v. Mahendra Pal [(1999) 4 SCC 43 : AIR 1999 SC 1786] , Keshab Narayan Banerjee v. State of Bihar [(2000) 1 SCC 607 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 272], Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare [(2002) 5 SCC 685 : AIR 2002 SC 2158], K. Shamrao v. Asstt. Charity Commr. [(2003) 3 SCC 563] , Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports [(2011) 10 SCC 316 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 148], SCC p.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 235 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

M/S. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala And Others on 25 April, 1961

In Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala [AIR 1961 SC 1669] Hidayatullah, J. (as His Lordship then was) made a distinction between a "court" and a "tribunal" as is explained hereunder : (AIR p. 1680, para 32) "32. ... These tribunals have the authority of law to pronounce upon valuable rights; they act in a judicial manner and even on evidence on oath, but they are not part of the ordinary courts of civil judicature. They share the exercise of the judicial power of the State, but they are brought into existence to implement some administrative policy or to determine controversies arising out of some administrative law. They are very similar to courts, but are not courts. When the Constitution speaks of „courts‟ in Article 136, 227 or 228 or in Articles 233 to 237 or in the Lists, it contemplates courts of civil judicature but not tribunals other than such courts. This is the reason for using both the expressions in Articles 136 and 227.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 266 - J C Shah - Full Document

The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi vs Employees Of The Bharat Bank ... on 26 May, 1950

16. The same principle was reiterated by this Court in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees [Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees, 1950 SCC 470 : 1950 SCR 459] and Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay [Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, (1953) 1 SCC 736 : 1953 SCR 730] where the test of a judicial tribunal as laid down in a passage from Cooper v. Wilson [Cooper v. Wilson, (1937) 2 KB 309 at p. 340 (CA)] was adopted by this Court: (Cooper case [Cooper v. Wilson, (1937) 2 KB 309 at p. 340 (CA)], KB pp. 340-41) "... A true judicial decision presupposes an existing dispute between two or more parties, and then involves four requisites:
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 405 - H J Kania - Full Document

The Engineering Mazdoor Sabha ... vs The Hind Cycles Ltd., Bombay(And ... on 18 October, 1962

1956 Cri LJ 326], Engg. Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd. [AIR 1963 SC 874], Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma [AIR 1965 SC 1595], Rama Rao v. Narayan [(1969) 1 SCC 167 : AIR 1969 SC 724], State of H.P. v. Mahendra Pal [(1999) 4 SCC 43 : AIR 1999 SC 1786] , Keshab Narayan Banerjee v. State of Bihar [(2000) 1 SCC 607 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 272], Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare [(2002) 5 SCC 685 : AIR 2002 SC 2158], K. Shamrao v. Asstt. Charity Commr. [(2003) 3 SCC 563] , Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports [(2011) 10 SCC 316 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 148], SCC p.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 127 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Resilient Innovations Private Limited vs Phonepe Private Limited on 11 April, 2022

Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. (supra) rendered by another Division Bench of Delhi High Court is distinguishable inasmuch as the same arises out of a case under Section 57 of the 1999 Act. Section 57 of the 1999 Act contemplates application for rectification filed before the Registrar or High Court. It is therefore an original proceeding and not an appellate proceeding. The same would therefore be outside the purview of the provisions of Section 100A of the Code and Letters Patent appeals thereagainst would be maintainable before the Division Bench.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1