Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.33 seconds)Section 11 in The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd vs Municipal Corporation Of City Of ... on 26 April, 1999
20. On a scrutiny of Sec. 7-I, we notice that the
language is clear and unambiguous and it does
not provide for an appeal against the
10 WP-28862-2019
determination made under Section 7-Q. It is well
settled in law that right of appeal is a creature of
statute, for the right of appeal inheres in no one
and therefore, for maintainability of an appeal
there must be authority of law. This being the
position a provision providing for appeal should
neither be construed too strictly nor too
liberally, for if given either of these extreme
interpretations, it is bound to adversely affect the
legislative object as well as hamper the
proceedings before the appropriate forum.
Needless to say, a right of appeal cannot be
assumed to exist unless expressly provided for
by the statute and a remedy of appeal must be
legitimately traceable to the statutory provisions.
If the express words employed in a provision do
not provide an appeal from a otherwise, an
appeal for its maintainability must have the clear
authority of law and that explains why the right
of appeal is described as a creature of statute
(see Ganga Bai v Vijay Kumar, Gujarat Agro
Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. Of the
City of Ahmedabad, State of Haryana v. Maruti
Udyog Ltd, Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.
State of UP, Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate
of Enforcement, Competition of Commission of
India v. SAIL)
State Of Haryana vs M/S.Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Ors on 7 September, 2000
20. On a scrutiny of Sec. 7-I, we notice that the
language is clear and unambiguous and it does
not provide for an appeal against the
10 WP-28862-2019
determination made under Section 7-Q. It is well
settled in law that right of appeal is a creature of
statute, for the right of appeal inheres in no one
and therefore, for maintainability of an appeal
there must be authority of law. This being the
position a provision providing for appeal should
neither be construed too strictly nor too
liberally, for if given either of these extreme
interpretations, it is bound to adversely affect the
legislative object as well as hamper the
proceedings before the appropriate forum.
Needless to say, a right of appeal cannot be
assumed to exist unless expressly provided for
by the statute and a remedy of appeal must be
legitimately traceable to the statutory provisions.
If the express words employed in a provision do
not provide an appeal from a otherwise, an
appeal for its maintainability must have the clear
authority of law and that explains why the right
of appeal is described as a creature of statute
(see Ganga Bai v Vijay Kumar, Gujarat Agro
Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. Of the
City of Ahmedabad, State of Haryana v. Maruti
Udyog Ltd, Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.
State of UP, Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate
of Enforcement, Competition of Commission of
India v. SAIL)
M/S Super Cassettes Industries Limited vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 17 September, 2009
20. On a scrutiny of Sec. 7-I, we notice that the
language is clear and unambiguous and it does
not provide for an appeal against the
10 WP-28862-2019
determination made under Section 7-Q. It is well
settled in law that right of appeal is a creature of
statute, for the right of appeal inheres in no one
and therefore, for maintainability of an appeal
there must be authority of law. This being the
position a provision providing for appeal should
neither be construed too strictly nor too
liberally, for if given either of these extreme
interpretations, it is bound to adversely affect the
legislative object as well as hamper the
proceedings before the appropriate forum.
Needless to say, a right of appeal cannot be
assumed to exist unless expressly provided for
by the statute and a remedy of appeal must be
legitimately traceable to the statutory provisions.
If the express words employed in a provision do
not provide an appeal from a otherwise, an
appeal for its maintainability must have the clear
authority of law and that explains why the right
of appeal is described as a creature of statute
(see Ganga Bai v Vijay Kumar, Gujarat Agro
Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. Of the
City of Ahmedabad, State of Haryana v. Maruti
Udyog Ltd, Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.
State of UP, Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate
of Enforcement, Competition of Commission of
India v. SAIL)
Rohit Tandon vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 10 May, 2018
20. On a scrutiny of Sec. 7-I, we notice that the
language is clear and unambiguous and it does
not provide for an appeal against the
10 WP-28862-2019
determination made under Section 7-Q. It is well
settled in law that right of appeal is a creature of
statute, for the right of appeal inheres in no one
and therefore, for maintainability of an appeal
there must be authority of law. This being the
position a provision providing for appeal should
neither be construed too strictly nor too
liberally, for if given either of these extreme
interpretations, it is bound to adversely affect the
legislative object as well as hamper the
proceedings before the appropriate forum.
Needless to say, a right of appeal cannot be
assumed to exist unless expressly provided for
by the statute and a remedy of appeal must be
legitimately traceable to the statutory provisions.
If the express words employed in a provision do
not provide an appeal from a otherwise, an
appeal for its maintainability must have the clear
authority of law and that explains why the right
of appeal is described as a creature of statute
(see Ganga Bai v Vijay Kumar, Gujarat Agro
Industries Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. Of the
City of Ahmedabad, State of Haryana v. Maruti
Udyog Ltd, Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.
State of UP, Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate
of Enforcement, Competition of Commission of
India v. SAIL)
Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank Ltd And Ors Chief ... on 13 November, 2019
It is submitted that Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Rojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. and Ors in
Civil Appeal No. 8588/2019 with W.P. (C) No. 279/2017 and order dated
27.02. 2012 passed by Division Bench in W.P. No. 979/2012 and the order
dated 25.03. 2004 passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab High Court
in CPW No. 331/2004 Arihant Threads Ltd. V/s. Union of India has
considered the aspect of non-functioning of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal and has entertained the writ petition and granted relief in
favour of the petitioner. IN the present case also CGIT Lucknow is not
functioning due to retirement of presiding officer and therefore the CGIT,
Jabalpur is holding additional charge from 5.9. 2019 and CGIT, Lucknow is
due for sitting between 20.01. 2020 to 30.01. 2020 as per the tentative
programme. The petitioner has prayed that till 30.12. 2020 the relief regarding
restraining respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 from taking any coercive action of
recovery of the amount of Rs. 9,07, 458/-. It is submitted that in identical
circumstances several orders have been passed by the Hon'ble courts
including constitutional bench judgment wherein due to functioning of the
Tribunal, the petitioner cannot be found at fault and interim relief was granted.
He has prayed for similar relief being granted to him.