Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.78 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
In the case of ONGC Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. [(2003) 5 SCC 705], the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 has held that it is a duty of the Arbitrator to have enforced the compromise which the party made and to uphold the sanctity of the contract which forms the basis of a civilized society.
Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 17 July, 1990
In the case of Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [(1991) 1 SCC 4] in the context and backdrop of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again emphasized that even in conciliation proceedings between the management and its workers a settlement arrived at will be binding on all workers of the establishment, even those who belong to the minority union which had object to the same. The object, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held was obviously is to uphold the sanctity of settlement reached with the active assistance of the Conciliation Officer and to discourage an individual employee or a minority union from scuttling the settlement. It is thus evident that sanctity of a contract is inviolable and binding.
M/S J.P.Builders & Anr vs A.Ramadas Rao & Anr on 22 November, 2010
In case of J.P. Builders Vs. A. Ramadas Rao [(2011) 1 SCC 429]with reference to doctrine of marshalling, which is fundamentally an equitable doctrine, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even the doctrine of marshalling cannot be permitted to become a device for destroying the sanctity of a contract. Contracts thus hold even against equity and only cede to legislation. No legislation has been sit up in deffence in the present case.
A.P.Dairy Dev.Corp.Federation vs B.Narasimha Reddy & Ors on 2 September, 2011
A mere change of government cannot be a cause for change of policy as the State is a continuing body. Politics cannot inform governance where what is done by the previous government is not contrary to statute or palpably arbitrary, Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation Vs. B. Narasimha Reddy [(2011) 9 SCC 286]. In the instant case the mere fact of the government of the day having changed after the conduct of the lottery on 1-3-2008 and issue of letter of allotment on 5-3-2008 cannot entail denial of the benefits of an allotment made, conveyed and consideration as demanded received from the allottees.