Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.36 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 63 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990
Answer to this question, in our opinion, is found in the judgment of this Court in the case of Kumari ShriLekha Vidyarthi & Ors. vs. State of U.P.& Ors. [1991 (1) SCC 212] wherein this Court held :
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Electricity Act, 2003
The Companies Act, 1956
M/A Psa Mumbai Investments Pte. Limited vs The Board Of Trustees Of The Jawaharlal ... on 11 September, 2018
55. Here, it would not be out of place to mention that the petitioner has also made a reference of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of PSA Mumbai Investment PTE Ltd vs Board of Trustees of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and Another (2018) 10 SCC 525 and submitted that in as much as no agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent and that the petitioner did not sign the PPA documents, he could not be saddled with any penalty by way of forfeiture of the bid security. On the contrary, the respondents have submitted that the said case is distinguishable on the facts inasmuch as in the said case the arbitration clause was invoked as per clause 19 of the draft concession agreement which had not been signed by the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no agreement between the parties at all as per the facts of the present case, therefore, making it clear that the arbitration clause contained in the draft concession agreement would not apply.
M/S Surya Constuctions Through Its ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Urban ... on 8 March, 2019
In a recent judgment in the case of M/S Surya Constructions vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh and others - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2610 of 2019 (decided on 8 March, 2019), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is well settled where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby clearly holding that a writ petition would be maintainable in certain cases relating to contractual disputes.