Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.74 seconds)Section 53 in The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 [Entire Act]
Section 74 in The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 [Entire Act]
Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 9 March, 2005
This Court said: (Sahakari Khand case
(20 supra) SCC p. 748, para 31)
'31. ... "unjust enrichment" means retention of a benefit by
a person that is unjust or inequitable. "Unjust enrichment"
G.Rama Mohan Rao & Anr vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep, ... on 7 March, 2017
51. As explained in G.Rama Mohan Rao Vs. Government of
Andhra Pradesh8 by a Division Bench of this Court in the context of
the provisions of the Act, the Parliament was conscious that the assets
and liabilities of the existing bodies corporate would, after bifurcation,
be transferred to other bodies corporate carrying on the same business.
In view of the language used in Section 74 of the Act, the legislative
intent was not for the assets and liabilities of the entities in the IX
Schedule to be transferred to the successor State Governments, but for
its apportionment between the two successor States, and for such
assets and liabilities to be utilized by the bodies corporate to be
created by the successor States. The Bench rejected the contention
that the legislative intent was for the assets and liabilities of the IX
Schedule entities to be apportioned only between the Governments of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and observed that if such were to be
the intention, one would have to presume that the Parliament intended
to bring to an end the existing corporations and that they should cease
to carry on operations after the appointed date, and for the assets and
liabilities of these entities including the employees of the
Corporations/Companies to be apportioned only between both the
State Governments. It held that such a construction would not find
support from a plain reading of the provisions of the 2014 Act and
that it was not the legislative intent. In observed in para 130 as under:
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rameshwar vs State Of Haryana on 12 March, 2018
38. The concept of unjust enrichment has been explained by the
Supreme Court in Rameshwar Vs. State of Haryana1 as retention of
a benefit by a person which is unjust or inequitable. The Supreme
Court explained:
Section 70 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 13 October, 2003
160. While the term "restitution" was considered by the
Supreme Court in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of
M.P.6 other cases excerpted later, the term "unjust
enrichment" came to be considered in Sahakari Khand Udyog
Mandal Ltd. v. CCE7.
1