Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu on 23 June, 1994
In the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors., (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the petitioner company, having its registered office in Kolkata, had read in Kolkata based newspaper the advertisement of O.N.G.C. inviting tenders at Delhi for works to be executed in Gujarat and in response, the petitioner sent its tender to the Delhi address of the O.N.G.C. from Kolkata and also made representation from Kolkata against non-consideration of its offer on the ground of its ineligibility because of failure to fulfil the experience criterion. Ultimately, he filed a writ application in the Calcutta High Court. In such a situation, the Supreme Court was of the view that the advertisement itself having mentioned that the tender should be submitted at New Delhi and that those should be scrutinized there and that the final decision would also be taken at New Delhi, merely because the petitioner read the advertisement at Kolkata and submitted the offer from Kolkata and made representations from Kolkata, such facts would not constitute "facts forming an integral part of cause of action." Therefore, in the said case, the petitioner challenged rejection of his tender which was submitted at Delhi, considered at Delhi and the final rejection order was also taken at Delhi. Thus, it was rightly pointed out that no part of cause of action had arisen at Kolkata merely because the registered office of the petitioners was in Kolkata and that there was exchange of correspondence from Kolkata. In the case before us, although the goods were illegally cleared in Bihar by the Customs Authority, the moment those commodities arrived in the place of business of the petitioners, such entry had an adverse consequence and thus cause of action for filing the present writ application complaining illegal entry of those goods arose. Therefore, the said decision cannot have any application to the fact of the present case.
The Customs Act, 1962
M/S. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 April, 2004
13. "What is a cause of action" has been appropriately discussed by S.B. Sinha, J. in the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited v. Union of India and Anr., an unreported decision of Supreme Court, decided on 28.04.2004 in Civil Appeal No. 9159 of 2003. In the said case, the question was whether the seat of the Parliament or the legislature of a State would be a relevant factor for determining the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid context, His Lordship in paragraph 6 of the judgment made the following observations:
Regional Manager & Anr vs Pawan Kumar Dubey on 8 March, 1976
16. Before dealing with those cases, we must not lose sight of the fact that while considering a decision as a precedent, each case is to be considered on its own fact. A slight difference in fact may make a lot of difference (see Regional Manager and Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Dubey ).
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Bombay vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay ... on 24 April, 1992
Smt. Meera Gupta vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 22 October, 1991
M/S Northern Plastics Ltd vs Hindustan Photo Films Mfg.Co. Ltd on 20 February, 1997
Indian Handicrafts Emporium & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 August, 2003
27. The principles laid down in those decisions are all well-settled. All that has been held in those decisions is that while interpreting a particular provision of a statute, the Court should give a purposive construction so as to give full effect to the object and purport of the statute and that the entire statute must be read as a whole. The object of the notification was to make the S.T.C. the sole import agent for public interest and not to allow private individuals the benefit of duty-free commodities and with the aid of those goods, to make unfair gain in the business by outrivaling other businessmen who collect the selfsame commodities from the market at a higher price. Thus, while interpreting the aforesaid notification, the Court should see that the S.T.C. cannot misuse its authority by indiscriminately selling such benefit to others by violating the provisions of the Customs Act. I, thus, find that those decisions rather support the contentions of the petitioners.