Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.43 seconds)Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, the Court has
observed as under -
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Gorkha Security Services vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 4 August, 2014
77. Such action is directly contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Government of NCT of Delhi, which
categorically held that final orders cannot introduce new charges beyond
those in the show cause notice.
Secy. Deptt. Of Home Secy.A.P. & Ors vs B. Chinnam Naidu on 9 February, 2005
28. This being the case, State of A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu is clearly
distinguishable, as in the facts of that case, the expression
"convicted" could not have possibly included the factum of arrest
which was pre-conviction. On the facts of the present case, we have
seen as to how UPSBC has indulged in a fraudulent practice and has
suppressed the fact that it was indicted for offences relatable to the
construction of a bridge by it, which had collapsed.
Bank Of India & Anr vs K.Mohandas & Ors on 27 March, 2009
Equally, the well-known rule of contra
proferentem as expounded in Bank of India v. K. Mohandas (at para
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.P. Power Management Company Limited vs M/S Sky Power Southeast Solar India ... on 16 November, 2022
In view of the law laid down by this Court
in >ABL (supra), Joshi Technologies (supra) and in M.P. Power (supra),
it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent that the writ
petition filed by the appellant before the High Court was not
maintainable and the relief prayed for was rightly declined by the High
Court in exercise of its Writ jurisdiction. Where State action is
challenged on the ground of being arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the
State would be under an obligation to comply with the basic
requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution and not act in an arbitrary,
unfair and unreasonable manner. This is the constitutional limit of their
authority. There is a jural postulate of good faith in business relations
and undertakings which is given effect to by preventing arbitrary
exercise of powers by the public functionaries in contractual matters with
private individuals. With the rise of the Social Service State more and
more public-private partnerships continue to emerge, which makes it all
the more imperative for the courts to protect the sanctity of such
relations.
R. Pandian And Anothera. Deivendran Son ... vs State Of Tamil Naduthrough The ... on 21 October, 1997
I am directed to refer to the above subject matter and to covey that a
joint committee of Director, ARAI and Director, ICAT be constituted to
conduct a fresh examination of the complaints received as referred
above.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited on 8 December, 2020
59. Similarly, in State of M.P. v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd.
(C.A. No. 9486/2019, decided on 08.12.2020), the Supreme Court has
acknowledged that bidders are entitled to rely on the literal terms of
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 17199/2024 PageSignature
42 of 54 Not Verified
Digitally Signed Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR By:SACHIN DATTA
Signing Date:05.09.2025 Signing Date:05.09.2025
04:25:00 04:24:22
disclosure prescribed in the tender. The relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced as under -