Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)
J. Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 25 October, 2013 cites

Bombay Metropolitan Region ... vs Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. & Ors on 13 December, 1994

In view of this basic infirmity, this Court finds that the decisions rendered by the Apex court in 1995(1) SCC 642 ( Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay v. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. and Others and 2004 ( 7) SCC 166( S.J.S.Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Others) do not place any hurdle and the matter has to be considered by the original authority himself for not having satisfied the requisite norms, particularly for not having given any effective opportunity of hearing before cancelling Ext.P1 NOC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 53 - S C Sen - Full Document

M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 17 March, 2004

In view of this basic infirmity, this Court finds that the decisions rendered by the Apex court in 1995(1) SCC 642 ( Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay v. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. and Others and 2004 ( 7) SCC 166( S.J.S.Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Others) do not place any hurdle and the matter has to be considered by the original authority himself for not having satisfied the requisite norms, particularly for not having given any effective opportunity of hearing before cancelling Ext.P1 NOC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 326 - R Pal - Full Document

Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on the decision reported in 1998 ( 8) SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others ) with regard to the proposition that, alternative remedy cannot be a bar, for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 2032 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1