Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.26 seconds)
Srrak-Reipl Jv & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 January, 2011 cites

Om Prakash Srivastava vs Union Of India And Anr on 24 July, 2006

I hope I will not be considered unappreciative of the very impressive arguments of counsel for the parties and disrespectful to the formidable authorities cited by them, if I say that in view of my decision in Heiza Boilers that I gave after considering the Supreme Court decisions in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Swaika Properties & Anr., AIR 1985 SC 1289, Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 711, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254 and Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (6) SCC 207, for brevity's sake, instead of dealing with the cited decisions separately, I can reiterate the principles summarized in Heiza Boilers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 222 - A Pasayat - Full Document

M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 April, 2004

I hope I will not be considered unappreciative of the very impressive arguments of counsel for the parties and disrespectful to the formidable authorities cited by them, if I say that in view of my decision in Heiza Boilers that I gave after considering the Supreme Court decisions in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Swaika Properties & Anr., AIR 1985 SC 1289, Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 711, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254 and Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., 2006 (6) SCC 207, for brevity's sake, instead of dealing with the cited decisions separately, I can reiterate the principles summarized in Heiza Boilers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 856 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu on 23 June, 1994

Mr Pal has argued that all these tests are satisfied in this case in which events related to the eligibility criteria happened in Kolkata; and that even applying a restrictive interpretation [borrowed from a private law 19th century English Case: Cooke v. Gill (1873) 8 CP 107] as adopted in some cases, e.g. Alchemist Limited & Anr. v. State Bank Sikkim & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1812, and the view taken in Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 711 and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Swaika Properties & Anr., (1985) 3 SCC 217 and other cases, it cannot be disputed that cause of action refers to the situs of those facts which the petitioner must prove to succeed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 650 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Swaika Properties & Anr on 8 April, 1985

Mr Pal has argued that all these tests are satisfied in this case in which events related to the eligibility criteria happened in Kolkata; and that even applying a restrictive interpretation [borrowed from a private law 19th century English Case: Cooke v. Gill (1873) 8 CP 107] as adopted in some cases, e.g. Alchemist Limited & Anr. v. State Bank Sikkim & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1812, and the view taken in Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 711 and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Swaika Properties & Anr., (1985) 3 SCC 217 and other cases, it cannot be disputed that cause of action refers to the situs of those facts which the petitioner must prove to succeed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 236 - A P Sen - Full Document

Navinchandra N. Majithia vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 September, 2000

Mr Pal has said that on a proper reading of the decisions of the Supreme Court on the expression "part of cause of action" it will appear that the Supreme Court is moving more towards the following tests: i) nexus principles [Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr, (2004) 6 SCC 254]; ii) occurrence of operative facts principles [Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., (2006) 6 SCC 207 and Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 640]; iii) genesis of the issues - even alerting would suffice [Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 457].
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 393 - K T Thomas - Full Document

Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh vs The Union Of India & Another on 5 December, 1960

Mr Bandopadhyay has relied on Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1961 SC 532; IFB Automotive Seating and System Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 2003 Cal 80; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr, (2004) 6 SCC 254; Ashok Kumar Sahoo (HUF) & Anr. v. Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2006 Cal 39; Musaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1288; Alchemist Limited & Anr. v. State Bank of Sikkim & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1812; Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2007) 6 SCC 769; an unreported decision dated July 16 & 20, 2009 in W.P. No.7030 (W) of 2007 (Heiza Boilers (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi & Ors.); and Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 135.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 181 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Alchemist Limited And Another vs State Bank Of Sikkim And Others on 16 March, 2007

Mr Pal has argued that all these tests are satisfied in this case in which events related to the eligibility criteria happened in Kolkata; and that even applying a restrictive interpretation [borrowed from a private law 19th century English Case: Cooke v. Gill (1873) 8 CP 107] as adopted in some cases, e.g. Alchemist Limited & Anr. v. State Bank Sikkim & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1812, and the view taken in Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 711 and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Swaika Properties & Anr., (1985) 3 SCC 217 and other cases, it cannot be disputed that cause of action refers to the situs of those facts which the petitioner must prove to succeed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 229 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next