Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)M/S Groupe Seb India Private Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 4 November, 2019
15. Mr. Sakesh Kumar, learned counsel for MSEB, supported the
submissions of Mr. Singh, and also relied upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in M.P. SEB v. Union of India.4
The State Of Meghalaya vs Union Of India on 11 May, 2023
In the course of final hearing, a contention was raised by UOI that the disputes raised are amenable to
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution. By an order
dated 10.04.2024, however, the petitions were held to be maintainable, having regard inter-alia to the
judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Meghalaya v. Union of India [2023 SCC OnLine SC 613],
Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd.& Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2006) 1 SCC 442] and Union
of India v. State of Rajasthan [(1984) 4 SCC 238].
M/S Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd. & ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 8 December, 2005
In the course of final hearing, a contention was raised by UOI that the disputes raised are amenable to
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution. By an order
dated 10.04.2024, however, the petitions were held to be maintainable, having regard inter-alia to the
judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Meghalaya v. Union of India [2023 SCC OnLine SC 613],
Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd.& Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2006) 1 SCC 442] and Union
of India v. State of Rajasthan [(1984) 4 SCC 238].
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
16. In rejoinder, Mr. Mehta submitted that the UOI was not entitled to
rely upon the material produced, as the order dated 03.11.2004 was itself
silent on the basis of allocation. He relied upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr.,5 to
contend that reasons which are not apparent from the order, cannot be
supplemented by way of an affidavit.
Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory
functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must
be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by
fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order
bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a
challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We
may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas
Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC
1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] :
Kranti Associates (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Masood Ahmad Khan on 6 July, 2007
21. Mr. Mehta also cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kranti
Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan,8 to submit that all orders,
judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative, must be supported by reasons.
This principle does not admit of any challenge, but the requirements of
the principle of natural justice must be assessed based upon the
circumstances of each case. The adequacy of the grounds available on the
record will be assessed in the subsequent part of this judgment.
Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate vs The Principal Secretary, Prime ... on 13 August, 2014
25. In the absence of any statutory mandate that a particular formula
must be used, it was open to the UOI to employ an alternative metric. The
judgments of the Supreme Court in Natural Resources Allocation, In re,
Special Reference No. 1 of 20129, and Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal
Secy.10, make it clear that allocation of resources may be undertaken by
different methodologies. The choice of factors is best left to the
administrative authorities, so long as they are not irrelevant or arbitrary.
Article 131 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.P. State Electricity Board vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 September, 2006
26. Looked at from this perspective, I am unable to find fault with the
methodology adopted by the UOI. That the power consumption ratio is a
relevant factor for allocation of resources, is clear from the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board vs. Union
of India11, which concerns the same parties and arises out of the very
same statute, viz. Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. By an order
dated 23.05.2003, under Section 58(4) of the Act, the Central
Government had provisionally allocated liabilities of the erstwhile
Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board between the two successor
electricity boards. The Court noticed the notification dated 04.11.2004, in
which the power consumption ratio was one of the factors taken into
9
(2012) 10 SCC [Paragraphs 137-146].