Trf Ltd vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd on 3 July, 2017
In TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd.,20,
the Hon'ble Supreme court held that:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)M/S. Al-Can Export Pvt. Ltd. vs Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd. And ... on 16 August, 2018
39. More recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Al-
Can Export (P) Ltd. v. Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Ltd.,23
has held as under:-
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Babu Lal Shrivastava on 1 July, 2021
19. State of M.P. v. Babu Lal is an interesting case showing how
this Court dealt with an artistic device employed by a non-tribal to
deprive a tribal of his land. The M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959
imposed restrictions on the transfer of land by members of a
Scheduled Tribe. Babu Lal, a non-tribal, filed a suit for declaration
against Baddiya, a Bheel, notified Scheduled Tribe, for declaration
that his name be recorded in the revenue record as bhumiswami
over the land of Baddiya. Baddiya did not contest the suit and the
parties filed a compromise conceding to the claim of Babu Lal. The
State Government intervened and filed a petition in the High Court
21
2026:JHHC:13049
seeking a writ of certiorari, submitting that the entire proceedings
in the suit were in contravention of sub-section (6) of Section 165
of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The judgment of the civil
court based on compromise was sought to be quashed. The High
Court dismissed the petition holding that the State could pursue
the alternative remedy of filing a suit for declaration that the
decree was null and void. In appeal by special leave, this Court
set aside the judgment of the High Court and issued a writ of
certiorari to quash the judgment and decree passed in the civil suit.
It was held: (SCC p. 436, para 5)
"5. One of the principles on which certiorari is issued is
where the Court acts illegally and there is error on the face
of record. If the Court usurps the jurisdiction, the record is
corrected by certiorari. This case is a glaring instance of
such violation of law. The High Court was in error in not
issuing writ of certiorari."
Urmila Dixit vs Sunil Sharan Dixit on 23 January, 2023
In Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit,17 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India discussed in details the rule
of purposive construction with respect to a beneficial
legislation in the following manner:
M/S Kozyflex Mattresses Private ... vs Sbi General Insurance Company Limited on 21 March, 2023
10. More recently, in Kozyflex Mattresses (P) Ltd. v. SBI General
Insurance Co. Ltd., this Court held the definition of a consumer
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to include a company or
corporate person in view of the beneficial purpose of the Act.
1