Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.34 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Central Coalfields Ltd.&An vs M/S Bhagwati Coke Industries P on 17 February, 2010
Central Coalfields Limited
& others (supra). The respondents were called upon. The
order has been passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in the backdrop of the fact that the claim of the
petitioners have been rejected vide order dated 09.09.2009
but the learned Single Judge while considering the judgment
rendered in the case of S.J.Coke Industries Private Limited
& others Vrs.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014
Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in
the case of State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava,[
(2015) 1 SCC 347] wherein at paragraph 22.1, it has been
held as under:
Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs M/S Tetulia Coke Plant(P)Ltd.& Ors on 10 August, 2011
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
"29. Likewise, this Court while expressly dealing with the
question of undue enrichment raised by Eastern Coalfields
repelled the said submission finding no merit therein in para
12 in the following words : (Eastern Coalfields case [(2011)
14 SCC 624 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 981] , SCC p. 628)
―12. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also
submitted before us that the respondents are not entitled to
the benefit, if they are otherwise entitled to on the principles
of unjust enrichment. We specifically asked the learned
Additional Solicitor General during the course of the
arguments to show us whether any such plea was taken in
the writ petition which was filed before the learned Single
Judge. The learned Additional Solicitor General was unable
to show that any such defence or plea was taken about
unjust enrichment in the pleadings filed before the learned
Single Judge. Such an issue was also not argued before the
learned Single Judge as no such reference is there in the
order of the learned Single Judge. It is, however, stated by
the learned Additional Solicitor General that such an issue
was raised before the Division Bench. But we could not find
the same raised in the pleadings nor was it considered. But
a mention is made in the judgment that such a plea was
argued. However, on going through the records, we find that
no such ground has also been taken even in the
memorandum of appeal filed in the present appeal.
Therefore, without taking a plea of unjust enrichment either
in the writ petition or before this Court, we are not inclined to
allow him to argue the plea at the time of argument and
entertain such a plea, particularly, in view of the fact that the
respondents did not have any notice of such a plea taken for
the first time at argument stage.‖
South Central Railway Emp.C.C.S.E.U vs B. Yashodabai & Ors on 8 December, 2014
"15. If the view taken by the High Court is accepted, in our
opinion, there would be total chaos in this country because in
that case there would be no finality to any order passed by
this Court. When a higher court has rendered a particular
decision, the said decision must be followed by a
subordinate or lower court unless it is distinguished or
overruled or set aside.
South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. ... vs Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies ... on 13 January, 1998
The High Court had considered
several provisions which, in its opinion, had not been
considered or argued before this Court when CA No. 4343 of
1988 was decided [South Central Railway Employees Coop.
Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop.
Societies, (1998) 2 SCC 580 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 703] . If the
litigants or lawyers are permitted to argue that something
what was correct, but was not argued earlier before the
higher court and on that ground if the courts below are
permitted to take a different view in a matter, possibly the
entire law in relation to the precedents and ratio decidendi
will have to be rewritten and, in our opinion, that cannot be
done. Moreover, by not following the law laid down by this
Court, the High Court or the subordinate courts would also
be violating the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of
India.‖
Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs In Item Nos. 89, 100 & 101. Mr. Uday Bedi, ... on 16 March, 2023
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue
to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated
expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from
the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get
the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to
satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and
delays or acquiescence.‖