Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.53 seconds)
B.P.Plc (Formerly B.P.Amoco Plc) A ... vs The Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 2 May, 2002 cites

Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991

Applying the principles regarding award of interest as has been held by the Apex Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department Vs. G.C.Roy (supra) to the effect "a person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled to has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called "interest, compensation or damages," the investors are entitled to be compensated by way of interest for delayed payment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 639 - K N Singh - Full Document

Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs Sharad Kumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla & ... on 15 May, 1992

x) Similarly the maxim "expressio unis est exclusio alterius" has no application in this case, in view of our interpretation of Sec.11(1) of SEBI Act, read with Regulation 44. On the same lines, in view of our interpretation of Sec.11(1) of SEBI Act read with Regulation 44, the Apex Court judgments in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authorities Vs. Sharad Kumar and Khemka & Co. Vs. State of Maharashtra also will have no application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 299 - G N Ray - Full Document

Seth Thawardas Pherumal vs The Union Of India(And Connected ... on 24 March, 1955

viii) As far as Satinder Singh & Ors. Vs. Umro Singh & Anr., is concerned, in the said case, the Apex Court had considered Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Ruttanji Ramji, (1937) 66 I.A. 66 AND ALSO Thawardas Pherumal Vs. Union of India, , and had held that the power to award interest on equitable grounds or under any other provisions of law is expressly saved, hence the above case will be of no assistance to the Appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 272 - Full Document

Bishamber Dayal vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 22 January, 1986

vi) The judgment in the case of Bhishamber Dayal Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., reiterates the well settled proposition of law namely that all executive action must be routed under some provision of law. It is SEBIs contention that SEBI has the power to award interest by reason of the provisions quoted hereinabove. If this is so, the action cannot be characterised as being unauthorised by law or not having the force of law, hence this judgment has no application in the instant case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next