Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
M/S. Diwan Singh And Company, Wine ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 November, 1993 cites

Har Shankar & Ors. Etc. Etc vs The Dy. Excise & Taxation Commr. & Ors on 21 January, 1975

13. Since the amount was to be deposited in the Treasury there being strike by the employees of the Nationalised Banks the amount could not be deposited on that very day at Mansa. The necessary amount was deposited on the following day i.e. March 19, 1993. The question for consideration is whether on that account the auction is to fail. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Har Shankar v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, AIR 1975 SC 1121. In para 22 of the judgment it was observed that:--
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 1073 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Ram And Shyam Company vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 May, 1985

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147, wherein the action of the State ignoring the highest bidder and granting licence of mines and minerals to another person recommended by the Chief Minister was quashed at the instance of the highest bidder holding the action to be arbitrary as no opportunity was given to the highest bidder to further increase his bid. The decision aforesaid cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The writ petition filed by M/s. Varinder Kumar and Company challenging the action of the respondents granting licence to respondents Nos. 5 to 7 already stood dismissed. Even if the facts stated in the petition are taken to becorrect, it was not expected of the official respondents like granting licence to respondents Nos. 5 to 7 to invite other bidders for affording opportunity to raise their bids. When the auction took place the petitioner had an opportunity of raising the bid over and above the bid of M/s. Varinder Kumar & Co. It appears that the present case has been fought on behalf of M/s. Varinder Kumar and Company as the draft of the prayer itself indicates that the petitioner has no legal right which can be enforced in this petition, personally or individually much less fundamental. As a matter of fact even if the bid of the highest bidder had been rejected the same would not infringe Art. 19(g) of the Constitution and in such circumstances grant of licence to others could not be subject matter of review.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 808 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 Next