Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.10 seconds)
The Hershey Company vs Dilip Kumar Bacha, Trading As Shree ... on 9 February, 2024 cites

M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 April, 2004

30.7 Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd v. U.O.I.- which is considered a watershed decision in territorial jurisdiction jurisprudence in the context of writ petitions - examined the issue of whether a writ petition, challenging a legislative enactment which had been applied by a judicial or executive authority to the prejudice of the petitioner, could be filed at Delhi, even though the petitioner was not located within the jurisdiction of this Court and had felt no effect of the legislation within such jurisdiction, merely because the situs of the Union legislature, which enacted the legislation, was in Delhi. Answering the issue in the negative, the Supreme Court held that a writ petition would lie, not before the High Court having jurisdiction over the legislature which enacted the legislation, but over the location of the litigant who felt the effect of the legislation by the passing of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023 & connected matters Page 46 of 70 By:RAHUL Signing Date:09.02.2024 19:16:40 judicial or executive order based on the impugned legislation - which is what Girdhari Lal Gupta terms "the dynamic effect". The intrinsic relationship between the situs of a litigation, or an executive action under challenge, and its dynamic effect as felt by the litigant is, therefore, fossilized in the law."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 856 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004

2018 (11) SCC 769, paragraphs 13, 18 7 2022/DHC/4746, paragraph 83 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023 & connected matters Page 15 of 70 By:RAHUL Signing Date:09.02.2024 19:16:40 • The last submission is that even under the 1999 Act when Section 3 of the 1958 Act was not retained, the constitution of the IPAB was contemplated by the legislature to be only one forum for the entire country. In fact, Section 84 of the 1999 Act makes it very clear that it was up to the Central Government to notify only for the purposes of sittings and distribution of work, but never for the purposes of conferring territorial jurisdiction. The notifications issued under the 1999 Act when the IPAB was functioning are relied upon to argue that the only notification which was issued was under Section 84(2) of the 1999 Act, and not under Section 84(4) of the 1999 Act. The distribution of work was never considered necessary even under the 1999 Act by the legislature and thus, even today, the same position ought to prevail. Any distribution of work by the IPAB itself as part of its practice for the purpose of administrative convenience cannot override the parliamentary intent of the legislature. Practice of the IPAB, as referred to in Midas Hygiene Industries Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia (IPAB) 8 and Girdhari Lal (supra) is relied upon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 411 - Full Document

Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umari vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 29 July, 2004

• Firstly, an examination of Section 57 of the 1999 Act in conjunction with Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules reveals that the Registrar and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction over cancellation petitions. Consequently, the definition of 'Appropriate office' should not be interpreted differently for the Registrar and the High Court. The link between the 'Appropriate office' and either the Registrar or the High Court must be consistent, as outlined in Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules, for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023 & connected matters Page 21 of 70 By:RAHUL Signing Date:09.02.2024 19:16:40 any cancellation petition. These provisions should be read holistically, and casus omissus should not be readily inferred, as established by the Supreme Court in Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umari v. State Of Gujarat13.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 76 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1