Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.03 seconds)

Sai Chalchitra vs Commissioner, Meerut And Others on 30 July, 1998

26. The decision cited by the petitioner in Sai Chalchitra's case is of no avail to him, because, in that case, the appellant was running a cinema hall and he filed a writ petition challenging the setting aside of cancellation of licence granted to the third respondent therein to run a video parlour. The grievance of the petitioner therein was that the video parlour of third respondent was situated within 350 metres from his cinema hall and hence no licence could be granted to third respondent to run a video parlour under the U.P.Cinema (Regulation of Exhibition by Means of Video) Rules,1988, and the same was in violation of the provisions contained in U.P. Regulation of Cinema Act,1955. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the locus standi of the petitioner to file the writ petition, which was set aside by the Apex Court, stating that the appellant being in the same trade as respondent 3 has a right to seek the cancellation of the licence granted to respondent 3 being in violation of the Act and the Rules.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

30. In the instant case, on a perusal of the entire material documents and after hearing the contentions raised by the respective parties, it is seen that there is no such arbitrary exercise in the decision making process of the respondent Board. Therefore, the authoritative principle laid down in the matter of tender process and the judicial restraint is well settled and this Court, in the absence of any such arbitrariness and violation of the Act and the Rules, has no reason to interfere with the decision of the respondent, as it is seen that every pragmatic approach has been shown by the respondent Board in taking the consortium.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document
1