Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.83 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Section 3 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Begam Suraiya Rashid & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 20 February, 2006
j) On the issue of maintainability of the Appeal, the Appellant has
relied on various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court viz.
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. V. NTPC (2009) 6 SCC 235,
Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. V. CIT (2012) 3 SCC 784, Begam
Suraiya Rashid v. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 305 and State of
Gujarat v. Manoharsinhji Prdumansinji Jadeja (2013) 2 SCC 300.
State Of Gujarat & Anr vs Manoharsinhji Pradyumansinhji Jadeja on 4 December, 2012
j) On the issue of maintainability of the Appeal, the Appellant has
relied on various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court viz.
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. V. NTPC (2009) 6 SCC 235,
Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. V. CIT (2012) 3 SCC 784, Begam
Suraiya Rashid v. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 305 and State of
Gujarat v. Manoharsinhji Prdumansinji Jadeja (2013) 2 SCC 300.
State Of Punjab vs Amandeep Aggarwal And Ors. Etc. on 28 October, 2016
566 of 2017, 725 & 1063 of 2017
(State of Punjab Vs. Dr. Amandeep Agarwal &Ors.) setting aside
the order of the NGT. In the above circumstances PSTCL moved
in a prudent manner in carrying out the downstream system works
and the delay was due to reasons beyond its control.
Gujarat Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd vs Essar Power Ltd on 13 March, 2008
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement
in case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. V. Essar Power Ltd.
(2008) 4 SCC 755 has reiterated that where a statue provides for
thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in
that manner and in no other manner.
V.K. Majotra vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 September, 2003
b) The Impugned Order is beyond the pleadings and prayers of the
Respondent No. 1 and is in violation to the principles of natural
Page 10 of 40
Appeal No 390 of 2017 and IA Nos. 566 of 2017, 725 & 1063 of 2017
justice. The prayer of the Respondent No. 1 was for payment of
transmission charges under PoC mechanism only. It is a well
settled principle that a court cannot travel beyond the pleadings of
the parties. On this issue the Appellant has relied on the judgement
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v EID Parry
(India) Lt. (2000) 2 SCC 223 and in case of V K Majotra v Union of
India (2003) 8 SCC 40.