Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.90 seconds)
A Sai Satya Prasad, Vizianagaram, vs Union Of India Rep Dpt Secy.Govt ... on 11 December, 2018 cites

Madras City Wine Merchants' Asson. And ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 27 July, 1994

14 ARR,J WP Nos.35321_2014 & batch Though learned Senior Counsel relied on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras City Wine Merchants' Assiciation v. State of Tamil Nadu [ (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 509; LIC of India and another v. Consumer Education & Research Centre [(1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 482; M.P.Oil Extraction and another v. State of M.P and others [ (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 592] and Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited v. Vardan Linkers [ (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand, since the decision taken by the respondents is a policy decision of the Government of India, which intends to adopt a fair and transparent policy for leasing out or disposal of public property and also avoid monopoly in salt manufacturing units, as such, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 293 - Full Document

L.I.C. Of India & Anr vs Consumer Education & Research Centre & ... on 10 May, 1995

14 ARR,J WP Nos.35321_2014 & batch Though learned Senior Counsel relied on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras City Wine Merchants' Assiciation v. State of Tamil Nadu [ (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 509; LIC of India and another v. Consumer Education & Research Centre [(1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 482; M.P.Oil Extraction and another v. State of M.P and others [ (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 592] and Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited v. Vardan Linkers [ (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand, since the decision taken by the respondents is a policy decision of the Government of India, which intends to adopt a fair and transparent policy for leasing out or disposal of public property and also avoid monopoly in salt manufacturing units, as such, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 682 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

M.P. Oil Extraction And Anr. Etc vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors on 9 July, 1997

14 ARR,J WP Nos.35321_2014 & batch Though learned Senior Counsel relied on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras City Wine Merchants' Assiciation v. State of Tamil Nadu [ (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 509; LIC of India and another v. Consumer Education & Research Centre [(1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 482; M.P.Oil Extraction and another v. State of M.P and others [ (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 592] and Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited v. Vardan Linkers [ (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand, since the decision taken by the respondents is a policy decision of the Government of India, which intends to adopt a fair and transparent policy for leasing out or disposal of public property and also avoid monopoly in salt manufacturing units, as such, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 457 - G N Ray - Full Document

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Vardan Linkers & Ors on 15 April, 2008

14 ARR,J WP Nos.35321_2014 & batch Though learned Senior Counsel relied on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras City Wine Merchants' Assiciation v. State of Tamil Nadu [ (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 509; LIC of India and another v. Consumer Education & Research Centre [(1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 482; M.P.Oil Extraction and another v. State of M.P and others [ (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 592] and Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited v. Vardan Linkers [ (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand, since the decision taken by the respondents is a policy decision of the Government of India, which intends to adopt a fair and transparent policy for leasing out or disposal of public property and also avoid monopoly in salt manufacturing units, as such, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 233 - L S Panta - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013

10. As contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondents, the lease agreements contained arbitration clause, the petitioners can go for arbitration for settlement of their disputes. When once an arbitration clause is available for the petitioners, this Court cannot entertain these writ petitions as held in Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [ (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 603], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 957 - Full Document
1   2 Next