Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.26 seconds)
Ms Agros Impex India Private Limited vs Chief Secretory on 31 March, 2016 cites

State Of Bihar And Others vs Jain Plastics And Chemicals Limited on 21 November, 2001

In State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., a two-Judge Bench reiterating the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of enforcement of contractual obligations has stated: (SCC p. 217, para 3) "3. ... It is to be reiterated that writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper proceedings for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it was open to the respondent to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach of contract. It is settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to 24 issue writ, but ordinarily that would be a good ground in refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 211 - Full Document

Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 5 September, 2001

12. Argument in opposition has been advanced on the instant challenge by the counsel for the State, submitting that non-issuance of the show-cause did not prejudice the case of the petitioner. Petitioner got full knowledge of his defaulting action or omission by the show-cause notice issued before termination of his agreement to which, he has also responded through detailed reply. The order of debarment is nothing but consequence which flows out of serious default on the part of the petitioner in execution of the project and making it operational within the time line stipulated under the agreement. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon judgments rendered in the case of Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. And another vs. State of U.P. And others (2001) 8 SCC 604, para-2 thereof to support his submission that the petitioner has been rightly debarred from participating in any tender process for a period of five years as it had failed to implement the High Security Registration Plate Scheme, as per terms and conditions of the agreement. It also resulted in termination of the contract vide letter dated 13.08.2012.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 75 - V N Khare - Full Document

Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 July, 2001

In support thereof, petitioner has referred to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan and others (2014) 9 SCC 105, Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab and others (2001) 6 SCC 260 Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar-I vs. Champdany Industries Limited (2009) 9 SCC 466, (2003) 2 MPLJ 158, Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum vs. Tra Vancore Titanium Products Ltd (2001) 1 SCC 590, Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 65. Proposition of law derived from the judgments referred to hereinabove, lay down that any decision entailing civil consequences is required to conform to the principles of natural justice. The facts constituting the gravamen of the charges has to be contained in the show-cause notice, otherwise it cannot be relied upon to make a basis for passing the impugned order. It is contended that the respondent also do not deny these facts in the pleadings or submissions relating to letters of various DTOs issued much after issuance of the show-cause notice. In relation to the charge nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the show-cause notice, petitioner has, on its part, asserted that these are based on the materials i.e. letters of various District Transport Officers issued in the last week of July 2012, which were once again never communicated to it. Petitioner has referred to the content of its reply to submit that affixation of HSRP were dependent upon the receipt of authenticated data, authorization letters from the designated Nodal Officers and deposit of money by the vehicle owners. The process of embossing and personalization of HSRPs starts once the above are completed. According to the petitioner, chart furnished with the show-cause reply 15 itself shows issuance of allotment letters by some of the DTOs between 29.05.2012 to 30.05.2012. Some of the DTOs had given allotment letters, but possession was yet to be given. Contention advanced is to the effect that the respondents were violating their reciprocal promises to provide adequate space for setting up embossing stations in or near the district Registration Office. Statement made at paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit to the assertion made on behalf of the petitioner on these facts, have also been referred to. It is submitted that the respondent department has accepted its responsibility to provide space to the Petitioner Company to ensure setting up of necessary infrastructure for embossing, supply and affixation of HSRP, while the company in turn, had to pay for using such space on monthly basis.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 275 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

C.C.E., Bhubaneswar-1 vs M/S. Champdany Industries Ltd on 8 September, 2009

In support thereof, petitioner has referred to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan and others (2014) 9 SCC 105, Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab and others (2001) 6 SCC 260 Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar-I vs. Champdany Industries Limited (2009) 9 SCC 466, (2003) 2 MPLJ 158, Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum vs. Tra Vancore Titanium Products Ltd (2001) 1 SCC 590, Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 65. Proposition of law derived from the judgments referred to hereinabove, lay down that any decision entailing civil consequences is required to conform to the principles of natural justice. The facts constituting the gravamen of the charges has to be contained in the show-cause notice, otherwise it cannot be relied upon to make a basis for passing the impugned order. It is contended that the respondent also do not deny these facts in the pleadings or submissions relating to letters of various DTOs issued much after issuance of the show-cause notice. In relation to the charge nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the show-cause notice, petitioner has, on its part, asserted that these are based on the materials i.e. letters of various District Transport Officers issued in the last week of July 2012, which were once again never communicated to it. Petitioner has referred to the content of its reply to submit that affixation of HSRP were dependent upon the receipt of authenticated data, authorization letters from the designated Nodal Officers and deposit of money by the vehicle owners. The process of embossing and personalization of HSRPs starts once the above are completed. According to the petitioner, chart furnished with the show-cause reply 15 itself shows issuance of allotment letters by some of the DTOs between 29.05.2012 to 30.05.2012. Some of the DTOs had given allotment letters, but possession was yet to be given. Contention advanced is to the effect that the respondents were violating their reciprocal promises to provide adequate space for setting up embossing stations in or near the district Registration Office. Statement made at paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit to the assertion made on behalf of the petitioner on these facts, have also been referred to. It is submitted that the respondent department has accepted its responsibility to provide space to the Petitioner Company to ensure setting up of necessary infrastructure for embossing, supply and affixation of HSRP, while the company in turn, had to pay for using such space on monthly basis.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trivandrum vs M/S. Tranvancore Titanium Products Ltd on 7 December, 2000

In support thereof, petitioner has referred to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan and others (2014) 9 SCC 105, Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab and others (2001) 6 SCC 260 Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar-I vs. Champdany Industries Limited (2009) 9 SCC 466, (2003) 2 MPLJ 158, Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum vs. Tra Vancore Titanium Products Ltd (2001) 1 SCC 590, Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 65. Proposition of law derived from the judgments referred to hereinabove, lay down that any decision entailing civil consequences is required to conform to the principles of natural justice. The facts constituting the gravamen of the charges has to be contained in the show-cause notice, otherwise it cannot be relied upon to make a basis for passing the impugned order. It is contended that the respondent also do not deny these facts in the pleadings or submissions relating to letters of various DTOs issued much after issuance of the show-cause notice. In relation to the charge nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the show-cause notice, petitioner has, on its part, asserted that these are based on the materials i.e. letters of various District Transport Officers issued in the last week of July 2012, which were once again never communicated to it. Petitioner has referred to the content of its reply to submit that affixation of HSRP were dependent upon the receipt of authenticated data, authorization letters from the designated Nodal Officers and deposit of money by the vehicle owners. The process of embossing and personalization of HSRPs starts once the above are completed. According to the petitioner, chart furnished with the show-cause reply 15 itself shows issuance of allotment letters by some of the DTOs between 29.05.2012 to 30.05.2012. Some of the DTOs had given allotment letters, but possession was yet to be given. Contention advanced is to the effect that the respondents were violating their reciprocal promises to provide adequate space for setting up embossing stations in or near the district Registration Office. Statement made at paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit to the assertion made on behalf of the petitioner on these facts, have also been referred to. It is submitted that the respondent department has accepted its responsibility to provide space to the Petitioner Company to ensure setting up of necessary infrastructure for embossing, supply and affixation of HSRP, while the company in turn, had to pay for using such space on monthly basis.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 22 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Dhakeswar1 Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,West Bengal on 29 October, 1954

In support thereof, petitioner has referred to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan and others (2014) 9 SCC 105, Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs. State of Punjab and others (2001) 6 SCC 260 Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar-I vs. Champdany Industries Limited (2009) 9 SCC 466, (2003) 2 MPLJ 158, Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum vs. Tra Vancore Titanium Products Ltd (2001) 1 SCC 590, Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 65. Proposition of law derived from the judgments referred to hereinabove, lay down that any decision entailing civil consequences is required to conform to the principles of natural justice. The facts constituting the gravamen of the charges has to be contained in the show-cause notice, otherwise it cannot be relied upon to make a basis for passing the impugned order. It is contended that the respondent also do not deny these facts in the pleadings or submissions relating to letters of various DTOs issued much after issuance of the show-cause notice. In relation to the charge nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the show-cause notice, petitioner has, on its part, asserted that these are based on the materials i.e. letters of various District Transport Officers issued in the last week of July 2012, which were once again never communicated to it. Petitioner has referred to the content of its reply to submit that affixation of HSRP were dependent upon the receipt of authenticated data, authorization letters from the designated Nodal Officers and deposit of money by the vehicle owners. The process of embossing and personalization of HSRPs starts once the above are completed. According to the petitioner, chart furnished with the show-cause reply 15 itself shows issuance of allotment letters by some of the DTOs between 29.05.2012 to 30.05.2012. Some of the DTOs had given allotment letters, but possession was yet to be given. Contention advanced is to the effect that the respondents were violating their reciprocal promises to provide adequate space for setting up embossing stations in or near the district Registration Office. Statement made at paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit to the assertion made on behalf of the petitioner on these facts, have also been referred to. It is submitted that the respondent department has accepted its responsibility to provide space to the Petitioner Company to ensure setting up of necessary infrastructure for embossing, supply and affixation of HSRP, while the company in turn, had to pay for using such space on monthly basis.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 706 - M C Mahajan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next