Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)
M/S. Friend'S Hp Station & Anr vs The Senior Regional Manager (Retail) on 8 April, 2010 cites

Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 December, 2002

Mr. Mukherjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harbanslal (supra), contended before us that the learned Single Judge erred in law in ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court on the selfsame point. According to Mr. Mukherjee, in the said decision the Supreme Court has specifically stated that the quality of oil varies with the expiry of time and, thus, the time period of 30 days should be strictly followed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1488 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979

At this juncture, we may appropriately refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority of India and others reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 where the said Court at paragraph 10 of the judgement stressed on necessity of rigorous compliance of the norms set up the executive agency in performance of its administrative acts:
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

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

"So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is 13 concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks 1.) The present case attracts applicability of the first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the petitioners' dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings."
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 2032 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1