Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.41 seconds)
Shivam Enterprises vs Jsw Steel Ltd. Formerly Known As Ispat ... on 10 April, 2026 cites

Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951

62. In this situation, in order to sustain its action against the petitioner, during the course of hearing, respondent No.1 - MPT sought to place reliance on Sections 10 to 12 of the said Act. The said contention was based on the assertion that, as long as the source of power was available to the said respondent to proceed against the petitioner, mere reference to a wrong provision would not vitiate its action. It was also contended that the petitioner could not rely upon the position of law, clarified by the Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (supra) and 29/42 ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:36:54 ::: WP_2127_96.doc Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (supra), for the reason that only the contents of the said notice dated 19.04.1995 issued by respondent No.1 - MPT under Section 14 of the said Act, could not be the basis to test the veracity of the action undertaken by the said respondent. It was submitted that the position of law clarified in subsequent judgments clearly indicated that the Court could look at pleadings and other material on record to examine as to whether the action could be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 973 - V Bose - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

62. In this situation, in order to sustain its action against the petitioner, during the course of hearing, respondent No.1 - MPT sought to place reliance on Sections 10 to 12 of the said Act. The said contention was based on the assertion that, as long as the source of power was available to the said respondent to proceed against the petitioner, mere reference to a wrong provision would not vitiate its action. It was also contended that the petitioner could not rely upon the position of law, clarified by the Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (supra) and 29/42 ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:36:54 ::: WP_2127_96.doc Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (supra), for the reason that only the contents of the said notice dated 19.04.1995 issued by respondent No.1 - MPT under Section 14 of the said Act, could not be the basis to test the veracity of the action undertaken by the said respondent. It was submitted that the position of law clarified in subsequent judgments clearly indicated that the Court could look at pleadings and other material on record to examine as to whether the action could be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Assistant General Manager State Bank Of ... vs Tanya Energy Enterprises Through Its ... on 18 September, 2023

72. It is also relevant to note that in both the aforesaid cases before the Supreme Court i.e. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India and another vs. Tanya Energy Enterprises, Through its Managing Partner Shri Alluri Lakshmi Narasimha Varma (supra) and Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board and another vs. K. Shyam Kumar and others (supra) as also judgement of this Court in the case of Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited vs. Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority and others (supra), the Courts specifically came to the conclusion that public interest and larger public good were involved. The cases concerned issues of mass copying during the examinations, black-listing of a contractor and action being bona fide taken by a secured creditor against a defaulting borrower. Such are not the facts in the present case, as the only question herein concerns the liability of a particular party for 35/42 ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:36:54 ::: WP_2127_96.doc raising, removing or destroying a vessel/wreckage, which impedes navigation in a port, in terms of the provisions of the said Act and in the light of the contractual obligations between the parties inter se. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the said principle can be invoked in public interest or for larger public good. Hence, the said contention raised on behalf of respondent No.1 also fails.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next