Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.38 seconds)The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
Section 9 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata S. Guram on 25 September, 1986
18. To strengthen the arguments on the aforesaid issue, learned
Advocate General has placed reliance upon the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs.
Ashalata S.Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447; Brij Mohan Parihar Vs. M.P.
State Road Transport Corporation and others (1987) 1 SCC 13; State
of M.P and others Vs. Lalit Jaggi (2008) 10 SCC 607; Soma Isolux
NH One Tollway Pvt. Ltd Vs. Harish Kumar Puri & ors (2014) 6 SCC
75; NOVA ADS Vs. Metropolitan Tansport Corporation & Ors. (2015)
13 SCC 257; and Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and
others Vs. Dr. Manu & another 2023 SCC Online SC 640 to contend
that non-obstante clause has an overriding effect over some particular
provision of the Act or even in any contract, if it is contrary to the Act.
No mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be
issued to any State authority to enforce an agreement violating a
statutory provision. It is further contended that contract price and excise
duty are entirely different. Therefore, the present petitions are liable to
be dismissed.
Brij Mohan Parihar vs M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & ... on 25 November, 1986
18. To strengthen the arguments on the aforesaid issue, learned
Advocate General has placed reliance upon the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs.
Ashalata S.Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447; Brij Mohan Parihar Vs. M.P.
State Road Transport Corporation and others (1987) 1 SCC 13; State
of M.P and others Vs. Lalit Jaggi (2008) 10 SCC 607; Soma Isolux
NH One Tollway Pvt. Ltd Vs. Harish Kumar Puri & ors (2014) 6 SCC
75; NOVA ADS Vs. Metropolitan Tansport Corporation & Ors. (2015)
13 SCC 257; and Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and
others Vs. Dr. Manu & another 2023 SCC Online SC 640 to contend
that non-obstante clause has an overriding effect over some particular
provision of the Act or even in any contract, if it is contrary to the Act.
No mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be
issued to any State authority to enforce an agreement violating a
statutory provision. It is further contended that contract price and excise
duty are entirely different. Therefore, the present petitions are liable to
be dismissed.
State Of M.P & Ors vs Lalit Jaggi on 17 September, 2008
18. To strengthen the arguments on the aforesaid issue, learned
Advocate General has placed reliance upon the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs.
Ashalata S.Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447; Brij Mohan Parihar Vs. M.P.
State Road Transport Corporation and others (1987) 1 SCC 13; State
of M.P and others Vs. Lalit Jaggi (2008) 10 SCC 607; Soma Isolux
NH One Tollway Pvt. Ltd Vs. Harish Kumar Puri & ors (2014) 6 SCC
75; NOVA ADS Vs. Metropolitan Tansport Corporation & Ors. (2015)
13 SCC 257; and Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and
others Vs. Dr. Manu & another 2023 SCC Online SC 640 to contend
that non-obstante clause has an overriding effect over some particular
provision of the Act or even in any contract, if it is contrary to the Act.
No mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be
issued to any State authority to enforce an agreement violating a
statutory provision. It is further contended that contract price and excise
duty are entirely different. Therefore, the present petitions are liable to
be dismissed.
M/S. Soma Isolux Nh One Tollway Pvt.Ltd vs Harish Kumar Puri & Ors on 17 April, 2014
18. To strengthen the arguments on the aforesaid issue, learned
Advocate General has placed reliance upon the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs.
Ashalata S.Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447; Brij Mohan Parihar Vs. M.P.
State Road Transport Corporation and others (1987) 1 SCC 13; State
of M.P and others Vs. Lalit Jaggi (2008) 10 SCC 607; Soma Isolux
NH One Tollway Pvt. Ltd Vs. Harish Kumar Puri & ors (2014) 6 SCC
75; NOVA ADS Vs. Metropolitan Tansport Corporation & Ors. (2015)
13 SCC 257; and Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and
others Vs. Dr. Manu & another 2023 SCC Online SC 640 to contend
that non-obstante clause has an overriding effect over some particular
provision of the Act or even in any contract, if it is contrary to the Act.
No mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be
issued to any State authority to enforce an agreement violating a
statutory provision. It is further contended that contract price and excise
duty are entirely different. Therefore, the present petitions are liable to
be dismissed.