Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
M/S Hydro Air Tectonics (Pcd) Ltd vs M/S National Buildings Construction ... on 10 August, 2011 cites

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Vardan Linkers & Ors on 15 April, 2008

4. The counsel for the petitioner relies upon Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Vardan Linkers (2008) 12 SCC 500 which also lays down that the writ jurisdiction ought not to be exercised in contractual matters unless there is a public law element; it is contended that the letter dated 27th July, 2011 merely states that the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice had not been found satisfactory and does not give any reasons as to why the same was not found satisfactory; that thus the writ petition would be maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 233 - L S Panta - Full Document

Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs K.S. Gandhi And Ors on 12 March, 1991

5. The duty to give reasons has to be seen in the context. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi (1991) 2 SCC 716 held that omission to record reasons is not necessarily illegal or violative of natural justice and depends upon the nature of enquiry and the effect of the decision on the rights of the person and attendant circumstances. As has often been said, the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances. In fact doubts have been expressed whether duty to give reasons is a part of the principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 356 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 5 December, 2006

6. The respondent no.1 NBCC in the matter of rescinding of the contract was not exercising any judicial or quasi judicial function. A power W.P.(C)5724/2011 Page 3 of 8 to deal with a contractual matter and a power of the statutory authority to exercise its statutory power in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties are distinct and different. Whereas reasons are required to be assigned in a case where civil or evil consequences may ensue, the same may not be necessary where it is contractual in nature (see Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 SCC 588). The Courts in contractual matters have insisted on giving of reasons only where the action impugned is apparently contrary to logic i.e. say where the highest bid is not accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 58 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Integrated Techno Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs N.D.M.C. And Ors. on 17 August, 2007

This Court in Integrated Techno Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. NDMC MANU/DE/8339/2007 held that the Court in judicial review proceedings under Article 226 is more concerned with the process of decision making rather than the merits of the decision; the Court does not don the hat of the decision maker and does not act as a super appellate administrative body to examine the soundness of the action; the duty of the Court is only to see whether the decision was arrived at after following a fair procedure considering the relevant factors and ignoring the irrelevant facts.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1