Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 seconds)
Mr. Mir Amjad Ali Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 30 July, 2024 cites

Mangilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 July, 2023

(ii) The view of the Apex Court in the Judgments (referred to and extracted above), i.e., (A) (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 664 in "Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India", (B) (2009) 12 SCC 40 in "Uma Nath Pandey & others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another", (C) (2004) 2 SCC Page 447, in "Mangilal v. State of M.P.", the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. It is however observed that the Respondents can proceed as per the directions dated 30.01.2023 issued by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of TSSPDCL (Greater Hyderabad Area) in C.G.No.312/2022-
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 18 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union Of India on 13 January, 1981

(A) In a decision of a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court reported in (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 664 in "SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA", the issue was whether the Central Government was required to comply with the requirements of audi alteram partem before it took over the management of an industrial undertaking under Section 18-AA(1)(a) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. R.S. Sarkaria, J.speaking for the majority consisting of himself and D.A. Desai, J. laid down the following principles of law: (SCC p. 689, para 44) observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 542 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Kishore Hegde vs Sebi on 5 November, 2019

Since then the principle has been chiseled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial 18 WP_1366 of 2024 SN,J treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. Para 11 : "Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice".
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 61 - T Agarwala - Full Document

Uma Nath Pandey & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 16 March, 2009

(ii) The view of the Apex Court in the Judgments (referred to and extracted above), i.e., (A) (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 664 in "Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India", (B) (2009) 12 SCC 40 in "Uma Nath Pandey & others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another", (C) (2004) 2 SCC Page 447, in "Mangilal v. State of M.P.", the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. It is however observed that the Respondents can proceed as per the directions dated 30.01.2023 issued by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of TSSPDCL (Greater Hyderabad Area) in C.G.No.312/2022-
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 345 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1