Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai vs M/S. Bureau Veritas And Ors on 14 February, 2005
8.20. The
law in this regard is well settled. In respect of what actually
transpired before the learned Tribunal or Court, the concerned
litigant must approach, the learned Tribunal or Court with
appropriate application instead of approaching higher forum with
allegations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, in the case of in
the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Bureau Veritas
And Others reported in (2005)3 SCC 265 that:
Section 71 in The Gujarat Co-Operative Societies Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Gujarat Co-Operative Societies Act, 1961
Central Bank Of India vs Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi And Anr on 16 July, 2003
ýS If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly
recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the
matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call the
attention of the very judges who have made the record. This is the
only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the
matter must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellant to
continue before this Court to the contrary.ýý
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in another case of Central Bank
of India Vs. Varjlal Kapurchand Gandhi and Another reported
in (2003)6 SCC 573 held that:
Mehsana District Central Cooperative ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 28 January, 2004
11.2. At
this stage, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the matter between Mehsana District Central
Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. V. State of Gujarat & Ors.
reported in AIR 2004 SC 1576, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed: ýSIn the facts and circumstances stated above,
the High Court by the impugned order issued a writ of
mandamus, directing Respondents 4 and 5 to take
appropriate action against the appellants in accordance with the
provisions contained in the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and
the Rules framed thereunder. We do not see any infirmity in the
impugned order. The Acts and Rules are made to be followed and not
to be violated. When the statute prescribes the norms to be followed,
it has to be in that fashion. Converse would be contrary to lawýý.
[emphasis supplied].
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. & ... vs C.K. Rajan & Others on 14 August, 2003
In support of
the said submission, Mr. Shah relied upon the judgments in the case
of Central Bank of India Vs. Varjlal Kapurchand Gandhi and
Another reported in (2003)6 SCC 573, in the
case of Roop Kumar V. Mohan Thendani reported in
(2003)6 SCC 595, in the case of Commissioner of
Customs, Mumbai Vs. Bureau Veritas And Others reported in
(2005)3 SCC 265 and in the case of Guruvayoor Devaswom
Managing Committee and Another Vs. C.K. Rajan and Others reported
in (2003)7 SCC 546. Mr. Shah also submitted that the erstwhile
Directors, including the petitioners, had acted in disregard towards
the provisions under the Act and, therefore, consequences
prescribed by the Statute for such breach must follow. As
regards the petitioners' request to permit them to contest the
election, subject to the result of the petition and as an interim
relief, Mr. Shah, while opposing the said request, submitted that
such request is beyond the scope of the petition, such a relief
has not been prayed for, and that in the facts of present case such
relief ought not be granted.