Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Monopoly Carriers & Cargo Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 January, 2019 cites

M/S Patel Enginnering Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 11 May, 2012

28. As explained by the Supreme Court in M/s Patel Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.: (2012) 11 SCC 257, an Executive Authority would have the discretion to decide as to whom it would deal with. The Railway Authorities have a right to refrain from dealing with any person. The only limitation being that such action should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. In the present case, the concerned Railway Authorities have found that the petitioner had repeatedly overloaded the cabin to an unreasonable extent, thus, putting the train and the lives of the passengers at risk. Plainly, this would be sufficient ground for the respondent to take an action to refrain from dealing with the petitioner. This Court finds no ground to interfere with the W.P.(C) 1871/2017 Page 13 of 14 decision of the Railway Authorities to blacklist the petitioner for a period of five years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 198 - Full Document

M/S Monopoly Carriers & Cargo Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 August, 2011

14. The CMM rejected the petitioner‟s appeal and this was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 10.03.2016. The said communication did not indicate any reasons for rejection of the petitioner‟s appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition assailing the order dated 18.01.2016 and 10.03.2016 (being W.P. (C ) 3079/2016 captioned Monopoly Carriers & Cargo (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.). This Court disposed of the said petition by an order dated 09.05.2016, whereby the order dated 10.03.2016 was set aside with the consent of the parties and the petitioner‟s appeal was remanded to the CMM for consideration afresh. The CMM was further directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Sultan Hussain vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 July, 2015

23. This court had considered a challenge to the said policy in Sultan Hussain v. Union of India & Ors. : W.P. (C) 2045/2014, decided on 14.07.2015. In that case, it was contended that the aforesaid clauses are inconsistent. The Court rejected the aforesaid contention and held that whereas Clause 1.3 confers discretionary powers on the authority to cancel the registration in case of a fourth default, Clause 1.7 casts a mandatory duty on the Railway Authorities to do so in the event there are eight violations. The Court had explained that the Railway Authorities would have no discretion after the eigth violation.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Manmohan - Full Document
1