Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.20 seconds)
M/S Pandit Damber Lal Bhagirathi ... vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 30 November, 2023 cites

A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 7 March, 2007

23. Once it is established that the petitioner had played fraud then any proceeding arising out of such order cannot be held to be legal or in consonance with law. The order obtained by fraud has to be treated as nullity and accordingly, the dealership has rightly been terminated as the same has been availed because of the fraud played by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others v. Govt. of A.P. and Others4.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 629 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

22. He further submitted that on the last complaint made by the complainant, and further in response to the order passed by this Court, IOCL had conducted an inquiry and on the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, a show cause notice was issued which resulted in termination of the dealership. The learned counsel for IOCL relied upon the judgement passed by this Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Tata Cellular v. Union of India1 and also a judgment passed this Hon'ble Court in State of U.P. v. Prem Shanker Sharma2 and the judgment passed in the matter of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Udai Singh3 stating that the Court has no power to make a judicial review on the decision taken by the company as the Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

M/S Sukh Sagar Medical College And ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 2020

28. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgement and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukh Sagar Medical College and Hospital v. State of M.P.6, wherein it is held that as far as the fraud is concerned, the fraud can either be actual or constructive fraud. The actual fraud is a concealment or false representation through an intention or reckless statement, whereas, the constructive fraud is an unintentional deception or misrepresentation that causes injury to another. There can also be an actionable fraud. It is a deception practice in order to induce another to part with property or surrender some legal rights.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

The State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Prem Shankar And Ors. on 30 July, 1974

22. He further submitted that on the last complaint made by the complainant, and further in response to the order passed by this Court, IOCL had conducted an inquiry and on the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, a show cause notice was issued which resulted in termination of the dealership. The learned counsel for IOCL relied upon the judgement passed by this Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Tata Cellular v. Union of India1 and also a judgment passed this Hon'ble Court in State of U.P. v. Prem Shanker Sharma2 and the judgment passed in the matter of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Udai Singh3 stating that the Court has no power to make a judicial review on the decision taken by the company as the Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - N D Ojha - Full Document
1