Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)
Western Coalfields Ltd. And Ors. vs New India Assurance Ltd. on 2 September, 2005 cites

Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998

28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power (See : Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., ) and this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 2032 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Biman Krishna Bose vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr on 2 August, 2001

43. We may also refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Biman Krishna Bose v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. . In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court held that the United India Insurance Company, being an acquiring Company under the provisions of General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, had the trappings of "the State" being other authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is further held that the acquiring company thus, being State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are expected to act fairly and reasonably. In the said case, the respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd. had refused to renew the mediclaim policy of the appellant on the ground of his past conduct, i.e. going into litigation for payment of his claim. Emphasizing the requirement of the instrumentalities of the State like the present respondent to act fairly and reasonably, the Apex Court observed thus :
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 111 - V N Khare - Full Document

Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation & ... vs Rajiv Kumar Bhasker on 28 July, 2005

45. We may also refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation and Ors. v. Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar reported in 2005 AIR SCW 3636. In the said case, the Life Insurance Corporation of India had issued the policy under Salary Saving Scheme of L.I.C. to the employees of the employer. Under the said Scheme, under tripartite agreement, the employer accepted the sole responsibility to collect the premium from its employees and remit the same by way of cheque to Corporation. However, the employer failed to pay the amount of premium to the Corporation. The Apex Court found that even though the employer failed to pay the amount of premium to the Corporation, still the Corporation could not be permitted to get discharged from its contractual obligation. The Apex Court observed thus in paragraph No. 31 of the said judgment as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 57 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next