Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.30 seconds)Chimajitao Kanhojirao Shirke & Anr vs Oriental Fire & Genera Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 July, 2000
Before we embark upon the respective contentions made before us on
the said issue, we may notice that although the point was urged during
hearing before the High Court, the First Respondent in its writ application
did not raise any plea in that behalf. The High Court was not correct in
allowing First Respondent to raise the said contention. [See Tmajirao
Kanhojirao Shirke and Another v. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co.
Ltd., [(2000) 6 SCC 622, at page 625]
The short question before the High Court was as to whether the
financial year should be taken to be April to March or March to February.
According to the authorities of the Provident Fund, the financial year is
taken to be from March to February in the sense that dues in respect of
March are deposited in April and those of February are deposited in March.
Yet again, the same logic would apply in regard to the intention of
MAHAGENCO which according to them was to ascertain that the contractor
should have minimum 100 number of employees on its roll so that its works
ultimately do not suffer.
Sm. Prativa Pal Alias Sm. Prativa Rani ... vs Janhabi Charan Chatterjee Alias J.C. ... on 4 July, 1962
The expression 'declaration' has a definite connotation. It is a
statement of material facts. It may constitute a formal announcement or a
deliberate statement. A declaration must be announced solemnly or
officially. It must be made with a view 'to make known' or 'to announce'.
[See Prativa Pal v. J.C. Chatterjee [AIR 1963 Cal. 470 at 472]. When a
person is placed in the category of a declared defaulter, it must precede a
decision. The expression 'declared' is wider than the words 'found' or
'made'. Declared defaulter should be an actual defaulter and not an alleged
defaulter.
Raghunath Thakur vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 November, 1988
Yet again in Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar and Others [(1989) 1
SCC 229], it was opined :
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
We may, however, notice that the principal ground for not
entertaining the writ petition filed by Appellant was judicial restraint on the
part of the court. It refused to intervene in the decision making process
relying on or on the basis of a decision of this Court in [Tata Cellular v.
Union of India - AIR 1996 SC 11].
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. & ... vs C.K. Rajan & Others on 14 August, 2003
This Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and
Another v. C.K. Rajan and Others [(2003) 7 SCC 546] observed :
State Of U.P. And Anr vs Johri Mal on 21 April, 2004
"It is equally true that even in contractual matters,
a public authority does not have an unfettered
decision to ignore the norms recognized by the
Courts, but at the same time if a decision has been
taken by a public authority in a bona fide manner,
although not strictly following the norms laid
down by the Courts, such decision is upheld on the
principle that the Courts, while judging the
constitutional validity of executing decisions, must
grant a certain measure of freedom of "play in the
joints" to the executive."
M/S Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 19 April, 2005
Recently, in Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe &
Hodgkinson (P) Ltd and Another [(2005) 6 SCC 138,], upon noticing a large
number of decisions, this Court stated
"15.
Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993
In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation [AIR 1994
SC 988, 1008], this Court held :
Noble Resources Ltd vs State Of Orissa & Anr on 13 September, 2006
[See also Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Anr. [2006 (9)
SCALE 181]
Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Tankha on G.J. Fernandez v.
State of Karnataka and Others [(1990) 2 SCC 488] wherein this Court
observed :