Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 53 (1.93 seconds)Mukund Lal Bhandari And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 May, 1993
113. The Supreme Court in Mukunda Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, , upon considering the purport and object of the aforementioned scheme observed :--
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu on 23 June, 1994
In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, , the Supreme Court while considering the import of Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India held :--
Aligarh Muslim Univiersity ... vs Vinay Engineering Entreprises (P) on 27 September, 1993
In Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd. the contract in, question was executed at Aligarh, the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh. Even the contract provided that in the event of dispute the Aligarh Court alone will have jurisdiction. The arbitrator was from Aligarh and was to function there. It was held that merely because the petitioner was a Calcutta based firm, this Court could not assume jurisdiction of the matter as no part of cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction.
Article 73 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ramlal Dutta vs Under Secretary To The Govt. Of India And ... on 19 February, 1990
In Ramlal Dutta v. Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, reported in 1990 (2) Cal LT (HC) 7, this Court followed the decision in Girdhari Lal v. Union of India, , and set aside the order passed by the Central Government on the ground that the petitioner's case has to be recommended by the State Government in view of the availability of the subsequent favourable recommendation by the State Government.
Panu Charan Mohapatra And Etc. vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 24 June, 1986
In Panu Charan Mohapatra v. State, , a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court observed:
Tej Singh Nidharak vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 9 January, 1984
In Tej Singh Nidharak v. Union of India, , the Himachal Pradesh High Court was considering the case where the pension was rejected on an honest ground that he did not signify therefor.