Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.93 seconds)Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2001
It is only after the receipt of the bids that the reserve price was made known. The perception in the market, therefore, clearly was that 51% shares of BALCO along with its management was not worth more than Rs.550.5 crores. The only other bidder who had expressed interest was HINDALCO whose bid was only Rs.275 crores. Under the circumstances, when the Government had decided to disinvest in BALCO by accepting a bid far in excess of the reserve price which was fixed by the Evaluation Committee, the said decision cannot, under any circumstances, be faulted. Whether the reserve price should have been 514.4 crores or more appears to be immaterial when the best price which has been offered for the sale of 51% stake in BALCO after global advertisement was only Rs.551.5 crores. There is no suggestion that there was any other company or institution which had or could offer more than the said sum. When proper procedure has been followed, as in this case, and an offer is made of a price more than the reserve price then there is no basis for this Court to conclude that the decision of the Government to accept the offer of Sterlite is in any way vitiated.
Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., Employees' ... vs Asst. Commissioner Of Labour (Hq.), ... on 8 December, 1983
Biscuit Employees' Union vs. Asst. Comm. of Labour) and in paragraph 48 of the judgment, the Division Bench has stated as under:
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Escorts Ltd. & Ors on 19 December, 1985
As regards the financial status of the fourth respondent and the allegation of irregularities, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the proposition stated on the scope of judicial review as stated in the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 11 (Tata Cellular vs. Union of India) and AIR 1986 SC 1370 (L.I.C. of India vs. Escorts Ltd).
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. & ... vs C.K. Rajan & Others on 14 August, 2003
13. It was also contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that there is total lack of bona-fides on the part of the petitioner in preferring this Public Interest Litigation and therefore, applying the ratio of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 (7) SCC 546 (Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee vs. C.K.Rajan), 2005 (1) SCC 590 (Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra) and 2002 (2) SCC 333 (Balco Employess' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India), the Writ Petition should be dismissed at the threshold.
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 14 December, 2004
13. It was also contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that there is total lack of bona-fides on the part of the petitioner in preferring this Public Interest Litigation and therefore, applying the ratio of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 (7) SCC 546 (Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee vs. C.K.Rajan), 2005 (1) SCC 590 (Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra) and 2002 (2) SCC 333 (Balco Employess' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India), the Writ Petition should be dismissed at the threshold.
Duncans Industries Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 1999
Reliance was also placed on the decision reported in 2000 (1) SCC 633 (Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. State of U.P.) in support of the submission that the valuation etc., are all questions of fact, to which the Court should be very reluctant to enter upon.
Gupta Sugar Works vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 26 October, 1987
Equally, reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 476 (Gupta Sugar Works vs. State of U.P.) to contend that the Court cannot be expected to act as Auditors on the financial aspects of commercial establishments.
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1990
On the scope of judicial review, reliance was also placed upon 1990 (3) SCC 223 (Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India), a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court, which was consistently followed by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decisions.