Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.37 seconds)M/S. Siemens Ltd. ... Appellant vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ... ... on 1 December, 2006
16. At this juncture, we may refer to the decision in Siemens Ltd. (supra)
on which Mr.Moorjhani has placed a heavy reliance. The learned counsel
has drawn our attention to paragraphs 8 to 11. In the said case, their
lordships expressed the view that when a demand is made forming the same
as a show cause notice and there is absence of jurisdictional fact for issuance
of the said notice, a writ petition would be maintainable. In that context in
paragraphs 9 and 11 it has been held thus:
Canara Bank And Ors vs Shri Debasis Das And Ors on 12 March, 2003
In the case of Uma Nath Pandey and Ors.(Supra), the principles laid
LPA 778/2010 & WP(C) No.7860/2010 page 9 of 14
down in the case of Debasis & Ors.(Supra) were reiterated.
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs B.N. Jha on 7 March, 2003
12. To buttress his submissions, the learned senior counsel has drawn
inspiration from the decisions rendered in: Canara bank and Ors. v. Shri
Debasis Das and Ors. JT 2003 (3) SC 183; Union of India and Others v.
B.N.Jha, JT 2003 (3) SC 201; Uma Nath Pandey and Ors. V. State of U.P.
and Anr., JT 2009 (4) SC 121; and Gurmej Singh v. Sate of Punjab & Anr.,
JT 2009 (13) SC 684.
Godde Venkateswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 1965
"23. As was observed by this Court we need not
go into „useless formality theory‟ in detail; in view
of the fact that no prejudice has been shown. As is
rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the
appellants unless failure of justice is occasioned or
that it would not be in public interest to dismiss a
petition on the fact situation of a case this Court
may refuse to exercise said jurisdiction ( Gadde
Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors.;
1966 (2) SCR 172). It is to be noted that legal
formulations cannot be divorced from the fact
situation of the case. Personal hearing was granted
by the Appellate Authority, though not statutorily
prescribed.
National Building Construction ... vs New Delhi Municipal Council And Anr. on 27 November, 2006
3. To appreciate the lis in question, it is imperative to sit in a time
machine to appreciate the number of litigations that have been filed before
this Court and the consequences and the effect of the same. The appellant
and others had entered into a contract with the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (MCD) and due to certain reasons an order was passed blacklisting the
firm and the said order was challenged in WP(C) No. 8130/2009. Though
contentions were raised with regard to the various facets relating to the
promptitude in which the contractor had carried on the work, the non-
justification of issuance of any kind of order like black listing, the high
handed attitude exhibited by the owner, the non-supply of revised drawings
and designs and obstructions at the site and the non-fixation of the revised
rate and certain other ancillary factors, the learned Single Judge thought it
appropriate not to enter into the said arena by expressing the view that it
involved factual dispute and refrained himself from deciding the same.
However, as far as the black listing is concerned, in paragraph 39 of the
order, the learned Judge opined that as the order of black listing has been
passed without following the principles of natural justice, and hence, the
same deserved to be lanceted in view of the decisions rendered in M/s
Erusion Equipment and Chemicals etc. Ltvs. V. State of West Bengal; AIR
1975 Supreme Court 266 and National Building Construction Corporation
Limited v. New Delhi Municipal Council; 2007 (2) R.A.J. 162 (Del).
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987
" 9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in
entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to
show cause unless the same inter alia appears to
have been without jurisdiction as has been held by
this Court in some decisions including State of
U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, (1987) 2 SCC 179:
The Special Director And Anr vs Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse And Anr on 9 January, 2004
(1987) 3 ATC 319: AIR 1987 SC 943, Special
Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse; (2004) 3 SCC
440: 2004 SCC (Cri) 826, and Union of India v.
Kunisetty Stayanarayana; (2006) 12 SCC 28:
(2006) 12 Scale 262, but the question herein has to
be considered from a different angle viz. when a
notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition
would be maintainable.
K.I. Shephard & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 September, 1987
In such an event, even if
the court directs the statutory authority to hear the
matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not
yield any fruitful purpose(K.I. Shephard v. Union
of India; (1987) 4 SCC 431: 1987 SCC (L& S)
438: AIR 1988 SCC 686. It is evident in the
instant case that the respondent has clearly made
up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the
counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-
Charan Lal Sahu Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 December, 1989
In a given case post-decisional hearing
can obliterate the procedural deficiency of a pre-
decisional hearing (Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of
India etc.; JT 1989 (4) SC 582: AIR 1990 SC
1480)."
1