Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.32 seconds)
Arun Kumar Agrawal vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 May, 2013 cites

Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Escorts Ltd. & Ors on 19 December, 1985

“The problem of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodation, illogical, if may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is best is not discernible, the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary exercises which can be declared void.” In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. and others (1986) 1 SCC 264 this Court held “that the Court will not debate academic matters or concern itself with intricacies or trade and commerce.
Supreme Court of India Cites 100 - Cited by 801 - O C Reddy - Full Document

M/S Bajaj Hindustan Ltd vs Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2010

“It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking a decision, right to “trial and error” as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the courts.” In Bajaj Hindustan Limited v. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited And Another (2011) 1 SCC 640, this Court held “that economic and fiscal regulatory measures are a field where Judges should encroach upon very wearily as Judges are not expert in those matters”.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 224 - Full Document

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

26. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the Courts have consistently restrained from interfering with economic decisions and that wisdom and advisabilities of economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to Judicial Review. Reference was made to the judgment of this Court in Balco Employers’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others (2002) 2 SCC 333, Bajaj Hindustan Limited v. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. and Another (2011) 1 SCC 640 and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Limited and Others (1986) 1 SCC 264.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1192 - Full Document

Vodafone International Holdings B.V vs Union Of India & Anr on 20 January, 2012

29. Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, submitted that it was up to the competitive bidding operator who was granted the right to explore the oil and natural gas making huge investment and that exploration costs would be recoverable only if oil was discovered. Shri Salve pointed out, initially, Shell had 100% IP in the PSC, but it failed to make any commercial discovery even after investing US$ 9 million and, then, CAIRN took up the challenge. Learned counsel submitted that Cairn gave up two of its rights to secure government permission, that is, it had agreed to make royalty cost recoverable and withdrew its claim that the burden of cess would be borne by the Government of India. Learned senior counsel submitted that assigning of a PI is a well defined concept and, referring to the judgment of this Court in Vodafone International Holdings v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 613, learned senior counsel submitted that the transfer of a share does not result in transfer of underlying assets. Learned senior counsel submitted that various decisions taken in this case either from the side of Union of India, ONGC or by respondent nos. 3 and 4, were commercial decisions based on which the parties have acted and this Court, sitting in its jurisdiction, shall not interfere with such commercial decisions. Referring to the report of CAG, learned senior counsel submitted that this Court shall not place any reliance on the report of the CAG and grant any relief to the petitioner based on the CAG report, since in case of any dispute between the Ministry and CAG, that is to be resolved by the Parliament and not this Court, sitting in this jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 92 - Cited by 350 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986

39. Matters relating to economic issues, have always an element of trial and error, so long as a trial and error are bona fide and with best intentions, such decisions cannot be questioned as arbitrary, capricious or illegal. This Court in State of M.P. and others v. Nandlal Jaiswal and others (1986) 4 SCC 566 referring to the Judgment of Frankfurter J. in Morey vs. Dond 354 US 457 held that “we must not forget that in complex economic matters every decision is necessarily empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call “trial and error method” and, therefore, its validity cannot be tested on any rigid “a priori” considerations or on the application of any straight jacket formula.” In Metropolis Theatre Co. v. State of Chicago 57 L Ed 730 the Supreme Court of the United States held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 869 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Liberty Oil Mills & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 1 May, 1984

The Court held that when the State or its instrumentalities of the State ventures into corporate world and purchases the shares of the company, it assumes to itself the ordinary role of shareholder, and dons the robes of a shareholder, with all the rights available to such a shareholders and there is no reason why the State as a shareholder should be expected to state its reasons when it seeks to change the management by a resolution of the company, like any other shareholder.” In Liberty Oil Mills and others v. Union of India and others (1984) 3 SCC 465, this Court held that expertise in public and political, national and international economy is necessary, when one may engages in the making or in the criticism of an import policy. Obviously, courts do not possess the expertise and are consequently, incompetent to pass judgments on the appropriateness or the adequacy of a particular import policy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 570 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next