Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.56 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Barium Chemicals Ltd. And Anr vs The Company Law Board And Others on 4 May, 1966
Dr. Singhvi has submitted that such challenge should be considered in the
context of fundamental difference in the two categories of units consuming
sal seed in their plants and the differences have already been recognised.
Since the validity of the contract including the renewal clause itself is
upheld as binding by judicial verdict, the actual exercise of power of
renewal cannot be held to be arbitrary because such renewal clause was
essentially necessary and inevitable to give effect to the protection for
which agreement has been made. Dr. Singhvi has contended that unless
significance and material facts and circumstances demonstrating the
violation of administrative discretion by recourse to irrelevant
considerations or on perverse or unreasonable criteria are established by
the appellants, such exercise of administrative discretion cannot be
invalidated. Dr. Singhvi has submitted that the appellants have failed to
demonstrate any such fact, even remotely, as vitiating the exercise of the
actual power of renewal. Dr. Singhvi has submitted that principles of
administrative discretion and judicial review have been clearly indicated
in the decisions of this Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Am. v. Company
Law Board and Others, AIR (1967) SC 295; C.I.T. Bombay v. Mahindra and
Mahindra, AIR (1984) SC 1182 para 11 and State of U.P. v. Renu Sagar, AIR
(1988) SC 1737 para 83.
Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay And ... vs Mahindra And Mahindra Limited & Ors on 2 September, 1983
Dr. Singhvi has submitted that such challenge should be considered in the
context of fundamental difference in the two categories of units consuming
sal seed in their plants and the differences have already been recognised.
Since the validity of the contract including the renewal clause itself is
upheld as binding by judicial verdict, the actual exercise of power of
renewal cannot be held to be arbitrary because such renewal clause was
essentially necessary and inevitable to give effect to the protection for
which agreement has been made. Dr. Singhvi has contended that unless
significance and material facts and circumstances demonstrating the
violation of administrative discretion by recourse to irrelevant
considerations or on perverse or unreasonable criteria are established by
the appellants, such exercise of administrative discretion cannot be
invalidated. Dr. Singhvi has submitted that the appellants have failed to
demonstrate any such fact, even remotely, as vitiating the exercise of the
actual power of renewal. Dr. Singhvi has submitted that principles of
administrative discretion and judicial review have been clearly indicated
in the decisions of this Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Am. v. Company
Law Board and Others, AIR (1967) SC 295; C.I.T. Bombay v. Mahindra and
Mahindra, AIR (1984) SC 1182 para 11 and State of U.P. v. Renu Sagar, AIR
(1988) SC 1737 para 83.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Sagar Yadav And Ors on 18 January, 1985
Dr. Singhvi has submitted that such challenge should be considered in the
context of fundamental difference in the two categories of units consuming
sal seed in their plants and the differences have already been recognised.
Since the validity of the contract including the renewal clause itself is
upheld as binding by judicial verdict, the actual exercise of power of
renewal cannot be held to be arbitrary because such renewal clause was
essentially necessary and inevitable to give effect to the protection for
which agreement has been made. Dr. Singhvi has contended that unless
significance and material facts and circumstances demonstrating the
violation of administrative discretion by recourse to irrelevant
considerations or on perverse or unreasonable criteria are established by
the appellants, such exercise of administrative discretion cannot be
invalidated. Dr. Singhvi has submitted that the appellants have failed to
demonstrate any such fact, even remotely, as vitiating the exercise of the
actual power of renewal. Dr. Singhvi has submitted that principles of
administrative discretion and judicial review have been clearly indicated
in the decisions of this Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Am. v. Company
Law Board and Others, AIR (1967) SC 295; C.I.T. Bombay v. Mahindra and
Mahindra, AIR (1984) SC 1182 para 11 and State of U.P. v. Renu Sagar, AIR
(1988) SC 1737 para 83.
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
In support of the contention that in appropriate case,
by negotia-tion, State largesse can be dispensed with, Dr. Singhvi has
relied on the decisions of this Court in Kasturi Lal v. J.K., AIR (1980) SC
1992 para 19, 22; State of M.P. and Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors., [1986]
4 SCC 566 para 38; Sachidanand Pandey and Anr. v. State of West Bengal &
Ors., [1987] 2 SCC 295 para 34, 40; Brij Bhushan v. J.K., [1986] 2 SCC 354
para 7 and G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon, [1991] 3 SCC 91 para 26, 43.
Sachidananda Pandey vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 February, 1987
In support of the contention that in appropriate case,
by negotia-tion, State largesse can be dispensed with, Dr. Singhvi has
relied on the decisions of this Court in Kasturi Lal v. J.K., AIR (1980) SC
1992 para 19, 22; State of M.P. and Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors., [1986]
4 SCC 566 para 38; Sachidanand Pandey and Anr. v. State of West Bengal &
Ors., [1987] 2 SCC 295 para 34, 40; Brij Bhushan v. J.K., [1986] 2 SCC 354
para 7 and G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon, [1991] 3 SCC 91 para 26, 43.
G.B. Mahajan And Ors vs Jalgaon Municipal Council And Ors on 13 September, 1990
In support of the contention that in appropriate case,
by negotia-tion, State largesse can be dispensed with, Dr. Singhvi has
relied on the decisions of this Court in Kasturi Lal v. J.K., AIR (1980) SC
1992 para 19, 22; State of M.P. and Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors., [1986]
4 SCC 566 para 38; Sachidanand Pandey and Anr. v. State of West Bengal &
Ors., [1987] 2 SCC 295 para 34, 40; Brij Bhushan v. J.K., [1986] 2 SCC 354
para 7 and G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon, [1991] 3 SCC 91 para 26, 43.
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. vs Vijay Bahadur Singh And Ors. on 23 March, 1982
In support of such
contention, Dr. Singhvi has relied on the decision of this Court in State
of M.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh, [1982] 2 SCC 365, Kasturilal v. J.K., AIR
(1990) SC 1992, India Cement v. Union of India, [1990] 4 SCC 356, Sitaram
Sugar Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and others, [1990] 3 SCC 223.
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1990
In support of such
contention, Dr. Singhvi has relied on the decision of this Court in State
of M.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh, [1982] 2 SCC 365, Kasturilal v. J.K., AIR
(1990) SC 1992, India Cement v. Union of India, [1990] 4 SCC 356, Sitaram
Sugar Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and others, [1990] 3 SCC 223.