Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.33 seconds)

M/S. Kanoria Chemicals And Industries ... vs U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors on 10 March, 1997

"As has been pointed out by this court in kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board (1997) 5 SCC 772, an order of stay may be made in different ways but the effect thereof is the same, namely, that for the period during which an order of stay operates, the order that is stayed does not exist in the eye of the law. Once the stay is vacated, the order is resuscitated and may then be executed. For the period of stay, therefore, the assessee cannot be said to be in default of the orders stayed and, therefore, no penalty in that behalf can be imposed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 116 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Asian Resurfacing Of Road Agency P. Ltd. vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 28 March, 2018

19. The learned counsel for the Respondents has also contended, by referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Supra) that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already directed for automatic vacation of stay Orders after six months. Thus, the aforesaid stay Order dated 17.12.2020, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in the case of the petitioner, staying the Blacklisting Order dated 11.12.2020, beyond a certain point, cannot bestow any benefit upon the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2158 - A K Goel - Full Document

M/S Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd vs Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 19 April, 2005

In this regard reliance has been placed on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., reported in (2005) 6 SCC 138. It is also submitted that it is a trite law that an interim order should not be used to obtain a gain on mere Patna High Court CWJC No.16313 of 2021 dt.30-09-2022 26/47 pendency of the main application and litigation should not be allowed to turn into a fruitful company. In this regard reliance has been placed on judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalabharati Advertising v.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 388 - G P Mathur - Full Document

United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs M/S.Harchand Rai Chandan Lal on 24 September, 2004

The Ld. counsel for the Respondents has also referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Patna High Court CWJC No.16313 of 2021 dt.30-09-2022 29/47 Lal, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 644, to submit that the terms of the contract have to be strictly read and natural meaning has to be given to it. Thus, it is submitted that the Respondents have acted strictly as per the provisions contained in the RFP and since the petitioner was lacking basic eligibility criteria, hence, without making out any issue of a clear case of misrepresentation, it chose to simply disqualify the bid of the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is fit to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 320 - A K Mathur - Full Document

M/S N.G. Projects Limited vs M/S Vinod Kumar Jain on 21 March, 2022

29. At this juncture, this Court would also refer to a recent judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.G. Projects Limited vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 336, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Courts should be reluctant in interfering with the contracts involving technical issues and the approach of the Courts should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions and the contract of public service Patna High Court CWJC No.16313 of 2021 dt.30-09-2022 44/47 should not be interfered with lightly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 183 - H Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next