Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.46 seconds)
Union Of Inida & Anr vs Vedanta Ltd & Ors on 26 March, 2021 cites

Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 June, 2012

49. The decision of the licensor to conduct an auction for granting access to spectrum, obviously, complies with the second of the requirements specified by this Court in para 85 of 2G Case [Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1] judgment. The question whether such a decision also complies with the requirements of the first of the two facets mentioned therein is the issue in this batch of matters. In other words, the adequacy of compensation which the LPA 346/2018 Page 43 of 54 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ KUMAR Signing Date:26.03.2021 11:32 Government of India seeks to derive by holding an auction for allowing access to spectrum is just and fair in the circumstances.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 248 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority, N.D. & Anr vs Joint Action Committee,Allottee Of Sfs ... on 13 December, 2007

72. The judgment in the case of DDA vs. Joint Action Committee (supra) relied upon by the petitioners is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In the said case, a self financing scheme was floated by the DDA and an estimated cost of the flats as well as the rights and the liabilities of the parties were laid down in the allotment letter. Subsequently, however, the DDA sought to levy certain additional amounts over and above the price in the allotment letter and which was challenged by the allottees. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the relationship of the parties arose out of the contract, whose terms and conditions were to be complied by both the parties. In case the DDA intended to alter or modify the terms of the contract, it was obligatory to bring the same to the notice of the allottee and having not done so, it could not have thrust new terms of the contract and, therefore, the policy under which the DDA sought to do so was not beyond the pale of judicial review. In the present case, the appellants have not taken any action which amounts to changing the terms of the PSC in as much as Article 2.1 gives an initial duration of the Contract and permits extension on terms mutually agreed between the parties. There is no term in the Contract which mandates the appellants to extend the same on the initial terms. Had that been the intent of the parties, the same would have been spelt in so many words in the PSC itself. Rather, the use of the words "on mutual agreement" shows the contra-intent of the parties that the terms of the extension of the PSC, if any, were to be formalised at the time of consideration for extension.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 179 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through ... vs Bhushan Kumar And Anr. on 18 March, 2008

74. For the reasons mentioned above by us, which we are not repeating, the judgment in GNCTD v. Bhushan Kumar (supra) is also of no avail to the petitioners. In the said case, the Government of NCTD had invited the LPA 346/2018 Page 52 of 54 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ KUMAR Signing Date:26.03.2021 11:32 applications through industrial units situated in non-conforming areas, for allotment of plots for relocation in terms of a scheme formulated by it and a certain area of the plot was offered and applied for by the respondents therein. Subsequently, however, there was a dispute with regard to the measurement of the plots in question. The Government supported its action of downsizing the plot by alleging that there was scarcity of land and also that the decision was in consonance with a policy decision approved by the Cabinet. In these facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue involved as to whether the binding contract could be modified, novated or cancelled, once it stood concluded and the parties were bound and governed by its terms and conditions. It was held that a policy by itself is not law which has the effect of thrusting new terms and conditions upon a contracting party. We repeat and reiterate that the appellants herein are not imposing a condition which has the effect of novation of a contract as the parties had willingly incorporated a term in the PSC that the extension beyond the current term would be on mutually agreed terms. Despite strenuous arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has been unable to show any provision in the PSC binding the contracting parties thereto into extension of the duration of the PSC, on the same terms and conditions of the share of Profit Petroleum, as existed on 15th May, 1995.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 22 - M Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next