Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.60 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Needle Industries Ltd. By Secretary And ... vs The Additional Commissioner For ... on 28 October, 1980
Since the landmark decision in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, the legal world seems to have accepted that any 'jurisdictional error' as understood in the liberal or modern approach, laid down therein, makes a decision ultra vires or a nullity or without jurisdiction and the 'ouster clauses' are construed restrictively and such provisions whatever their stringent language be, have been held, not to prevent challenge on the ground that the decision is ultra vires and being a complete nullity, it is not a decision within the meaning of the Act. The concept of jurisdiction has acquired 'new dimensions'. The original or pure theory of jurisdiction means 'the authority to decide' and it. is determinable at the commencement and not at the conclusion of the enquiry.
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005
In support of the said submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision reported in Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. D.P.Dube 1963 (14) STC 410, Carl Stilgmbh v. State of Bihar , Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer , Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks , State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. 142 STC 1. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the existence of an alternative remedy, by way of revision, will not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Collector Of Customs & Excise,Cochin & ... vs A. S. Bava on 27 July, 1967
In support of the said submission, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Collector of Customs and Excise, Cochin v. A.S.Bava and Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer v. Tata Tea Ltd. 127 STC 210. It was also submitted that the question of resorting to the alternative remedy, is a matter to be considered at the stage of admission of the Writ Petition and not after the Writ Petition is admitted and interim stay is granted, after hearing both parties. The learned Senior Counsel also canvassed the case of the petitioner on merits.
Agricultural Income Tax And Sales Tax ... vs Tata Tea Ltd. on 3 October, 2001
In support of the said submission, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Collector of Customs and Excise, Cochin v. A.S.Bava and Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer v. Tata Tea Ltd. 127 STC 210. It was also submitted that the question of resorting to the alternative remedy, is a matter to be considered at the stage of admission of the Writ Petition and not after the Writ Petition is admitted and interim stay is granted, after hearing both parties. The learned Senior Counsel also canvassed the case of the petitioner on merits.
Indian Transformers Ltd. vs Assistant Collector And Anr. on 5 August, 1983
9. But, the learned Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that even assuming it has got a statutory remedy, it need not invoke it, when the impugned orders are passed without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders are passed, mainly on the basis of the objective assessment of the facts of the case. Therefore, hearing at the revisional stage can cure the lack of hearing at the original stage. Further, when no complicated questions of fact or law are involved, hearing need not necessarily be by words of mouth. It can be by way of a representation also. See the decision of K.S.Paripoornan, J., (as His Lordship then was) in Indian Transformers Limited v. Assistant Collector 1983 KLT 861. In this case, all the contentions raised by the petitioner have been dealt with by the first respondent. So, the lack of hearing has not, prima facie, caused any serious prejudice to the petitioner. Even assuming it has caused any prejudice, the petitioner will get a full-fledged hearing at the revisional stage.
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
This concept is best explained by K.S.Paripoornan, J., in his Lordship's separate Judgment in Mafattal Industries v. Union of India . The relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as follows:
Union Of India vs Tarachand Gupta & Bros on 28 January, 1971
The decision in Animinic case has been cited with approval in a number of cases by this Court: citation of a few such cases - Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta & Bros , A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak , R.B.Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT & WT) , N.Parthasarathy v. Controller of Capital Issues(l99l)Z SCC 153 atp.\95,Associated Engineering Co. v. Govt. of A. P. , Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi .
A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988
The decision in Animinic case has been cited with approval in a number of cases by this Court: citation of a few such cases - Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta & Bros , A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak , R.B.Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT & WT) , N.Parthasarathy v. Controller of Capital Issues(l99l)Z SCC 153 atp.\95,Associated Engineering Co. v. Govt. of A. P. , Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi .