Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.88 seconds)Dresser Rand S.A vs Bindal Agro Chem Ltd And K. G. Khosla ... on 12 January, 2006
38. The view taken in Dresser Rand's case (supra) was
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Rishi
Khan Logistics Private Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of Kandla
Port Trust", (2015) 13 SCC 233.
Rishi Kiran Logistics P.Ltd vs Board Of Trus. Of Kandla Port Trust&Ors; on 21 April, 2014
38. The view taken in Dresser Rand's case (supra) was
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Rishi
Khan Logistics Private Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of Kandla
Port Trust", (2015) 13 SCC 233.
Bhushan Power And Steel Ltd vs S. L. Seal & Ors on 15 December, 2016
39. The nature of the right created under LoI issued and the
consequences of non-fulfillment of the conditions contained
therein for undue long time is considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of "Bhushan Power and Steel
Limited v. S.L. Seal", (2017) 2 SCC 125 wherein it has been
held which reads as under:
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Hind Stone Etc on 5 February, 1981
50. So far as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on the judgment rendered by this court in the case of
M/s Maa Vaishno Devi Stone Mines (supra) is concerned, it is
evident from the fact of the said case that the application of the
petitioner for mining lease has been rejected due to non-
submission of the EC. However, in some cases, matter was
remitted by revisional authority/ Mines Commissioner before the
original authority to take decision afresh, therefore, this court
taking into consideration the aforesaid fact of the said case and
further taking into consideration that the Mines Commissioner has
acted in a very highly arbitrary and discriminatory manner, has
directed the revisional authority to pass a fresh order in
accordance with law.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 6 December, 2014
54. It is settled position of law that the applicability of the judgment is to
be tested on the basis of the factual aspect involved in the case, as
has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 75, paragraph-47
of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow :-
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
59. This Court, applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court to issue Writ of Certiorari and basing upon the reason
assigned hereinabove, is of the view that the order passed by the
quasi-judicial authorities, cannot be said to suffer from an error,
hence, the same is not fit to be interfered with.
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954
57. Similarly, in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad
Ishaque and Ors., reported in AIR 1955 Supreme Court 233, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph-21 as hereunder: -
Sawarn Singh And Anr. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 19 November, 1975
In the case of Sawarn Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and
Ors., reported in (1976) 2 SCC 868, their Lordships, while
discussing the power of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of writ of certiorari, has been pleased to hold at
paragraph nos.12 and 13 as hereunder:
1