Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)
Sanjay Alloys (P) Ltd., Moram, Chittoor ... vs Government Of A.P. And Ors. on 29 January, 1999 cites

Bihar State Electricity Board & Anr vs M/S. Usha Martin Industries & Anr on 8 May, 1997

This judgment was subsequently relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd., ; Pouranmai Oil Mills v. State of Kerala and another, ; State of Bihar and another v. Usha Martin Industries Ltd., (1987) 65 STC 430 and M/s. Vij Resins Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, .
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Vij Resins Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Etc vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 12 May, 1989

This judgment was subsequently relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd., ; Pouranmai Oil Mills v. State of Kerala and another, ; State of Bihar and another v. Usha Martin Industries Ltd., (1987) 65 STC 430 and M/s. Vij Resins Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, .
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 23 - R S Pathak - Full Document

M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978

In support of his contention, the learned Counsel strongly relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, . This judgment is locus classicus on the point. Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as he then was), traced out the history of the doctrine of promissory estoppel called by other names also as 'requisite estoppel', 'quasi-estoppel' and 'new estoppel'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1143 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

M/S Hyderabad Vanaspathi Limited vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board ... on 1 April, 1998

17. The learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that according to Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act (Act 54/48), the terms and conditions notified by the Board are statutory and the fact that individual agreements are entered by the Board with each consumer does not make the terms and conditions for supply contractual. He also relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in M/s. Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and others, (DN SC). The learned Counsel submitted that the Board is an autonomous body and it has to manage its own finances by virtue of Sections 49 and 59 of the Electricity (Supply) Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 100 - Full Document

Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. Etc. ... vs A.P. State Electricity Board And Ors ... on 15 April, 1993

He further submitted that the validity of Section 49 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board and another, . However, the learned Standing Counsel did not venture to say that the directions given by the Government from time to time under Section 78-A are (sic not) binding on the Board.
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 82 - S Mohan - Full Document
1   2 Next