Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)
Devki Global Capital Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 July, 2020 cites

Allahabad Bank vs Ramvilash Agrawal 5 Wpc/2352/2018 ... on 27 August, 2018

9. They place reliance on the judgment dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Allahabad High Court in in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.22067/2013 tiled Ayurveda Sewashram Kalyan Samiti Thr. Secretary Allahabad vs. Union of India Thr. Secretary & 3 Ors., to submit that the respondent no.2 has been charged with the purpose of registering the contracts for due implementation of the Policy of the Government of India. Such Policy merely requires a certificate that the poppy seeds have originated in a country where opium poppy is grown licitly and legally. The Import Policy being a statutory document, cannot be derogated from. Therefore, the respondents cannot arbitrarily fix the Country Cap or deny registration of the contracts of the petitioners on arbitrary ground.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 16 - P K Mishra - Full Document

Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 June, 2012

10. As far as the registration of their agreements by the respondent no.2 is concerned, the learned counsels for the petitioners submit that in terms of the Guidelines, the respondent no.2 has to register all contracts that have been duly registered with the TMO. They submit that the sale contracts of the petitioners have been registered by the TMO and documents acknowledging such registration have been filed on record. However, in spite of such registration by the TMO, the respondent no.2 in turn is not registering the sale contracts of the petitioner presumably because the Country Cap has been exceeded. They submit that if the Country Cap has been exceeded, the respondents are under an obligation WP(C)Nos.7676/2019, 11123/2019, 11125/2019, 13124/2019 Page 5 to devise a fair and transparent manner of distribution of such Country Cap amongst various importers. They submit that the respondents cannot resort to a 'first cum first serve' manner of allocating such Country Cap amongst various importers of poppy seeds. They place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 1 to submit that in such matters, the respondents cannot adopt the 'first cum first serve' principle for allocation of the Country Cap.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 248 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Ugar Sugar Works Ltd vs Delhi Administration And Ors on 22 March, 2001

25. The determination of the Country Cap would be in the realm of economic policy and unless found to be mala fide, unreasonable, arbitrary or unfair, this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review cannot interfere with the same. Reference may be had to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration & Ors. MANU/SC/0189/2001; Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333); Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India, (2009) 7 SCC 561; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/0249/1990; Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343; Delhi Development Authority vs. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats AIR 2008 SC 1343.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 209 - Full Document

Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2001

25. The determination of the Country Cap would be in the realm of economic policy and unless found to be mala fide, unreasonable, arbitrary or unfair, this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review cannot interfere with the same. Reference may be had to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration & Ors. MANU/SC/0189/2001; Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333); Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India, (2009) 7 SCC 561; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/0249/1990; Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343; Delhi Development Authority vs. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats AIR 2008 SC 1343.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1192 - Full Document

Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2009

25. The determination of the Country Cap would be in the realm of economic policy and unless found to be mala fide, unreasonable, arbitrary or unfair, this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review cannot interfere with the same. Reference may be had to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration & Ors. MANU/SC/0189/2001; Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333); Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India, (2009) 7 SCC 561; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/0249/1990; Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343; Delhi Development Authority vs. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats AIR 2008 SC 1343.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 178 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Peerless General Finance And ... vs Reserve Bank Of India on 30 January, 1992

25. The determination of the Country Cap would be in the realm of economic policy and unless found to be mala fide, unreasonable, arbitrary or unfair, this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review cannot interfere with the same. Reference may be had to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration & Ors. MANU/SC/0189/2001; Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333); Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India, (2009) 7 SCC 561; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/0249/1990; Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343; Delhi Development Authority vs. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats AIR 2008 SC 1343.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 232 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority, N.D. & Anr vs Joint Action Committee,Allottee Of Sfs ... on 13 December, 2007

25. The determination of the Country Cap would be in the realm of economic policy and unless found to be mala fide, unreasonable, arbitrary or unfair, this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review cannot interfere with the same. Reference may be had to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration & Ors. MANU/SC/0189/2001; Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 333); Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India, (2009) 7 SCC 561; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/0249/1990; Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343; Delhi Development Authority vs. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats AIR 2008 SC 1343.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 179 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1