Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.82 seconds)The Indian Electricity Act, 1910
Section 617 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Indian Companies Act, 1913
Canara Bank And Ors vs Shri Debasis Das And Ors on 12 March, 2003
When the matter went to Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
Hon'ble Court in its judgment dealt with this issue at para 61
to 62 and confirmed the findings of Patna High Court.
It is also important to mention that H1 contains
purchase from other sources 'respectively' meaning thereby
that H1 also includes other sources apart from TVNL. Same is
the position for H3. Thus, H1 and H3 are not just TVNL.
He relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, (2003) 4 SCC 557, wherein it
has been held that "The expression "respectively" means
34
belonging or relating separately to each of several people. It is
a word of severance."
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs Kamal Swaroop Tondon on 18 January, 2008
By
deletion of sold units from denominator, obviously the rate of
fuel surcharge would increase. Therefore, the Impugned
Judgment so far TVNL issue is concerned is absolutely
erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
No party, defying the order of a High Court can take
recourse to the fact that substantial injustice has not been
done. The High Court has the power to reach injustice
wherever it is found (Refer:U.P. State Sugar Corpn.
Ltd. v. Kamal Swaroop Tondon, (2008) 2 SCC 41 - Para
State Of Bihar vs Kalika Kuer @Kalika Singh & Ors on 25 April, 2003
35) and it cannot on the basis of certain erroneous
calculations refuse to enforce the directions of the previous
Division Bench or of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reference in
this regard is also made to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer, (2003) 5
SCC 448 wherein it was held that "The earlier judgment may
seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the
later Bench of coordinate jurisdiction". Relying upon the above,
Ld. Sr. Counsel contended that on this issue, the order
passed by the writ Court requires interference.
Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission And Ors on 14 July, 2003
Reference in this regard is also made to the Judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Singh v.
U.P. Public Service Commission, reported in (2003) 11 SCC
584;whereinit was held that -
Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi vs M/S. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors on 18 November, 2010
In this regard, reference is made to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE v. Hari Chand Shri
Gopal, (2011) 1 SCC 236, wherein it was held that -
Cholan Roadways Limited vs G. Thirugnanasambandam on 17 December, 2004
18. On this issue, we are of the view that it was never
the argument of the Petitioner-Appellant that deemed
supplies have to be excluded all together. A wrong framing of
question has led to an incorrect answer. Reference in this
regard is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G.
Thirugnanasambandam, reported in(2005) 3 SCC 241
wherein it was held that -