Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.37 seconds)

Itc Limited vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 July, 2011

In ITC Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2011 (7) SCC 493], the Supreme Court brought out the distinction between a transfer, pure and simple, governed by the Law of Contracts and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and a transfer that is in the domain of public law. If a case falls in the domain of public law, the Court will have to consider two questions before a completed transfer is interfered. The first question is whether the transferee had any role to play, such as fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, etc. Even in cases where the transferee had acted bona fide and was blameless, saving of the transfer would depend upon the further question whether public interest had suffered or not. Therefore, it is necessary to keep in mind, public interest before an interim order is granted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 77 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Nagpur Distillers, Nagpur And Anr on 1 May, 2006

In State of Maharashtra vs. Nagpur Distilleries [2006 (5) SCC 112], the Supreme Court reversed the unconditional interim order granted by the Bombay High Court and directed the licensee to pay 50% and to give an undertaking to pay the balance 50% in the event of success in the main petition, so as to balance the equities and afford protection to the interests of both parties. I think the same formulae would balance equities between the parties, in view of the alternatives we have seen above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 19 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 17 August, 2012

55. But the said decision arose out of a demand for recovery of excess money paid to the employees. The above decision deals with a demand made after a final determination of liability. But in the cases of this nature, no final determination is made as yet by the arbitral tribunal. Therefore, the above decision is of no avail to the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1165 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 Next