Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.37 seconds)Air India vs Cochin International Airport Ltd on 31 January, 2000
Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter, , Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 530, AIR India v. Cochin International Airport Limited, 2000 (1) SCALE 346, AIR India v. Cochin International Airport Limited, 2000(1) Scale 346, Siemens Limited v. WBSEB, 2000 (2) CHN 108, Raunaq International Limited v. IVR Construction Limited, , Asia Foundation and Construction Limited v. Trafalgar House, , Sterling Computers Limited v. M and N Publications Limited, , Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, , and TVL Sundaram Granites v. Imperial Granites Limited, 1998 (8) SCC 150, had also laid down the law that the Court shall exercise its jurisdiction having regard to the doctrine of self-restrain and grant of contract should be viewed having regard to the circumstances obtaining in each case.
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
7. The law in this regard is well known and does not require any reiteration
having regard to the decisions of the Apex Court in G.J. Fernandez v. Stale of Karnataka and others, , Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) SCC 651, Andi Mukta Sadguru v. V.R. Rudani and others, .
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta ... vs V.R. Rudani & Ors on 21 April, 1989
7. The law in this regard is well known and does not require any reiteration
having regard to the decisions of the Apex Court in G.J. Fernandez v. Stale of Karnataka and others, , Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) SCC 651, Andi Mukta Sadguru v. V.R. Rudani and others, .
Asstt. Excise Commissioner vs Issac Peter on 22 February, 1994
Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter, , Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 530, AIR India v. Cochin International Airport Limited, 2000 (1) SCALE 346, AIR India v. Cochin International Airport Limited, 2000(1) Scale 346, Siemens Limited v. WBSEB, 2000 (2) CHN 108, Raunaq International Limited v. IVR Construction Limited, , Asia Foundation and Construction Limited v. Trafalgar House, , Sterling Computers Limited v. M and N Publications Limited, , Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, , and TVL Sundaram Granites v. Imperial Granites Limited, 1998 (8) SCC 150, had also laid down the law that the Court shall exercise its jurisdiction having regard to the doctrine of self-restrain and grant of contract should be viewed having regard to the circumstances obtaining in each case.
Common Causea Registered Society vs Union Of India & Others on 25 September, 1996
Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter, , Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 530, AIR India v. Cochin International Airport Limited, 2000 (1) SCALE 346, AIR India v. Cochin International Airport Limited, 2000(1) Scale 346, Siemens Limited v. WBSEB, 2000 (2) CHN 108, Raunaq International Limited v. IVR Construction Limited, , Asia Foundation and Construction Limited v. Trafalgar House, , Sterling Computers Limited v. M and N Publications Limited, , Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, , and TVL Sundaram Granites v. Imperial Granites Limited, 1998 (8) SCC 150, had also laid down the law that the Court shall exercise its jurisdiction having regard to the doctrine of self-restrain and grant of contract should be viewed having regard to the circumstances obtaining in each case.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
It was held in Ramana 's case (supra):
Asia Foundation & Construction Ltd vs Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd. & ... on 17 December, 1996
Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter, , Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 530, AIR India v. Cochin International Airport Limited, 2000 (1) SCALE 346, AIR India v. Cochin International Airport Limited, 2000(1) Scale 346, Siemens Limited v. WBSEB, 2000 (2) CHN 108, Raunaq International Limited v. IVR Construction Limited, , Asia Foundation and Construction Limited v. Trafalgar House, , Sterling Computers Limited v. M and N Publications Limited, , Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, , and TVL Sundaram Granites v. Imperial Granites Limited, 1998 (8) SCC 150, had also laid down the law that the Court shall exercise its jurisdiction having regard to the doctrine of self-restrain and grant of contract should be viewed having regard to the circumstances obtaining in each case.
Sterling Computers Limited Etc vs M & N Publications Limited And Ors on 12 January, 1993
Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter, , Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 530, AIR India v. Cochin International Airport Limited, 2000 (1) SCALE 346, AIR India v. Cochin International Airport Limited, 2000(1) Scale 346, Siemens Limited v. WBSEB, 2000 (2) CHN 108, Raunaq International Limited v. IVR Construction Limited, , Asia Foundation and Construction Limited v. Trafalgar House, , Sterling Computers Limited v. M and N Publications Limited, , Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, , and TVL Sundaram Granites v. Imperial Granites Limited, 1998 (8) SCC 150, had also laid down the law that the Court shall exercise its jurisdiction having regard to the doctrine of self-restrain and grant of contract should be viewed having regard to the circumstances obtaining in each case.
Peddada Venkata Ramana And Ors. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 12 October, 1990
13. The question which now arises for consideration is how equities between the parties ought to be adjusted. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may refuse to grant any relief to the petitioner even if it is lawful to do so provided thereby the public interest would suffer. But in the case of this nature, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the first respondent has gone out of its way to help the second respondent and had thrown all the norms to the winds. Had such conditions been advertised including the condition No.8 aforementioned, several other people could have taken part in the bid. The action of the first respondent is arbitrary. Such action being deplorable, we have no hesitation in issuing a direction that such contracts shall stand terminated from this date. It is further directed that in future, the first respondent shall issue advertisement clearly laying down the norms thereof in order to enable all the eligible persons to take part in the auction, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Ramana
v. I.A. Authority of India (supra) wherein a law has been laid down in the following terms :