Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.36 seconds)
Rashmi Metalliks Limited & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 June, 2019 cites

Tara International vs Union Of India And 2 Ors on 26 October, 2018

23. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of M/s. Sara International Ltd. (supra). Judicial comity, discipline and propriety warrant that the decisions on point of the Orissa High Court should be followed by this Court unless of course, there were valid reasons to differ with the view taken by the Orissa High Court. I have gone through the above judgments of the Orissa High Court and completely agree with the reasoning and the conclusion thereof. Further, learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order dated April 20, 2017 in W.P. No.5385 (w) of 2017, also principally agreed with the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Orissa High Court with regard to the grounds on which the Circular dated September 17, 2013, had been quashed by the Orissa High Court in some writ petitions qua the petitioners therein. It must be borne in mind that the said judgments and orders have been accepted by the authorities and have been acted upon by them. On a careful examination of the orders, I arrive at a conclusion that the decision of the Orissa High Court ought to be followed in this case as well and the petitioner No.1 cannot be deprived of similar benefits available to their similarly situated counterparts in respect of whom permissions have been granted by the railway authority pursuant the direction of the Orissa High Court. The principle of stare decisis should 20 be invoked in public interest, and in order to keep the scale of justice steady and not variable with every new Judge's opinion.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Southern Railway Employees ... on 29 April, 1998

27. With regard to the decisions relied upon by Mr. Bose, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, I hold that the decision in Union of India & Others vs. Southern Railway Employees Cooperative Stores workmen reported in (1998) 5 SCC 530 is not of any assistance to the respondents inasmuch as, in that case the dispute 23 between the workman and the Union of India had already reached a finality in previous litigation and the order passed therein was binding between the parties to the litigation as the order passed by the Tribunal had been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. As such, the Apex Court held that the parties thereto could not deny the liability or the binding effect of the decisions by taking a plea that subsequently a contrary view had been taken by another bench in a similar case. The facts are distinguishable in the case before this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

M/S Kaushik Coop.Building Society vs N.Parvathamma & Ors on 11 April, 2017

28. The principle of res judicata applies when a matter that was directly and substantially in issue in a previous proceeding was heard and finally decided by the court but, the same issue was again raised in the subsequent proceeding between the same parties. In order to establish, that the reliefs claimed by the petitioner were barred by the principles of constructive res judicata the respondents were required to show that the prayers in the earlier writ petitions were refused by the learned Single Judge when the matter was relegated to the authorities with specific observations as to the entitlement of the petitioner No.1 to get the permission to carry consignment of third parties. On the contrary the contentions of the petitioners were upheld in the previous decisions. With regard to the decision of Kaushik Cooperative Building Society (supra), I am of the opinion that the said decision had no manner of the application in the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment held that the principle of resjudicata or constructive resjudicata had been adopted as a public policy to give a finality to the 24 decision of a court of competent jurisdiction and also to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The case before this court is not one in which parties have raised a contrary plea on a matter which was finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction and was abusing the process of court by filing one petition after another. On the contrary, the respondents have failed to comply with the specific directions of this Court passed in proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 12 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

Shyam Singh vs Daryao Singh (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 19 November, 2003

9. By applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in "Shyam Singh V. Daryao Singh" (supra), the Division Bench of our High Court in "Ram Baran Prosad V. Ram Mohit Hazra" (supra) and the Division of Orissa 10 High Court in "M/s. Sara International Ltd. V. Union of India and Ors" (supra) I would like to hold that there is no prohibition of assignment of the right of the petitioner in providing services to the third party under Wagon Investment Scheme without violating the terms and conditions incorporated in the deed of agreement dated June 15, 2009.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Ram Baran Prosad And Anr. vs Ram Mohit Hazra And Anr. on 18 November, 1959

9. By applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in "Shyam Singh V. Daryao Singh" (supra), the Division Bench of our High Court in "Ram Baran Prosad V. Ram Mohit Hazra" (supra) and the Division of Orissa 10 High Court in "M/s. Sara International Ltd. V. Union of India and Ors" (supra) I would like to hold that there is no prohibition of assignment of the right of the petitioner in providing services to the third party under Wagon Investment Scheme without violating the terms and conditions incorporated in the deed of agreement dated June 15, 2009.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 67 - Full Document

Nirendra Kumar Saha & Ors vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Ors on 5 March, 2009

A similar view was taken in the decision of Nirendra Kumar Saha v. Steel Authority of India Ltd reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Cal 619, where it was held that the doctrine of Comity of Courts demanded that Courts should adopt a consistent and uniform approach towards administration of justice by taking adequate care to ensure elimination of conflicting orders. In the said case, the issues raised had been substantially answered by three other High Courts and the learned Judge did not find any reason to differ with them.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 65 - B Somadder - Full Document

Birendra Kumar Rai Alias Virendra Kumar ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 September, 1992

"9. So far as the second contention raised by Mr. Pal is concerned, we also find sufficient force therein. It is now well settled principle of law that if a benefit is given in terms of a judgment persons similarly situated must be given the same benefit. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Apex Court in Virendra Kumar v. Union of India reported in (1981) 3 21 SCC 30 : A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1775. The same principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in more than one case. Suffice it to refer A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 668 at 694: (1993) 2 SCC 375 at 376 and 1980 (4) S.C. 13. We find it difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Das to the effect that the petitioners are not persons similarly situated upon whom the benefit of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court could be extended inasmuch as all the candidates irrespective of their places of residence have applied for pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement dated 7.4.95 and had undertaken test and interviews. If the notice dated 21st October, 1996 cancelling the advertisement dated 7.4.95 as also the advertisement dated 26th October, 1996 are ultra vires the Constitution of India and/or are otherwise illegal, their position becomes same to those who were the writ- petitioners before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court inasmuch as it became obligatory on the part of the respondents to consider their candidature also pursuant to the advertisement dated 7.4.95 and declare their results of the selection held pursuant to the earlier advertisement. Furthermore, after recommendations have been made by the Railway Board, the Chief Security Commissioner, who is the authority subordinate to the Railway Board, must give effect thereto in its letter and spirit. In other words, if the Railway Board has directed implementation of the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court to the Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F. Eastern Railway, Calcutta, benefit of the said Judgment must be extended by the said authority to all persons who are a similarly situated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 65 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

Dwarkadas Khetan & Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 23 February, 1956

In Dwarkadas Khetan & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City reported in A.I.R. 1956 Bombay 321, Chagla C.J., speaking for the Division Bench observed - "Our uniform practice has been to fall into line with decisions given by other High Courts because Income Tax Act is an all-India Act, but with respect when we find that a view is taken which is contrary to the provisions of a section of the Income Tax Act, we cannot, again with respect, fall into line with such a view. More than authorities it is our duty to give effect to the provisions of the Act itself and when the provisions of the Act are clear no authority can persuade it to take a contrary view."
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 30 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1   2 Next