Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-16-2004
Reported in : 109(2004)DLT514; 2004(72)DRJ747
..... v. union of india : 1978crilj1281a . in the leading judgment it has been observed that mechanics of price fixation have necessarily to be left to the executive and unless it is patent that there is hostile discrimination against a class the rocessual basis of price fixation has to be accepted in the generality of cases as valid.'' 7.2 the next case ..... expressed by the larger bench in sheela wanti case (supra).'' 7.5 clearly, the mechanics of price fixation have necessarily to be left to the executive and unless it is patent that there is hostile discrimination against a class the processual basis of price fixation has to be accepted in the generality of cases as valid. in this case such no .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-06-2004
Reported in : 2004(2)ARBLR1(Delhi); III(2004)BC139; 111(2004)DLT146; 2004(74)DRJ159
..... industrial undertakings act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the act) by awarding compound interest of 18% p.a at monthly rests, which according to the learned counsel is clearly and patently illegal. i have considered the said submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioner also. 11.counsel appearing for the respondent , however, submitted that the respondent being a registered small ..... cannot assume jurisdiction to award an increased rate. accordingly, the aforesaid part of the award, which granted increased rate by the arbitrator, cannot be sustained as it suffers from a patent error and, thereforee, the said part of the award is set aside and quashed.10.the next contention, as raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, was that the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-03-2004
Reported in : [2005(104)FLR1184]
..... are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the learned tribunal are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material or evidence. it also cannot be said that the learned tribunal committed any illegality in holding the transfer of the petitioner as valid and ..... of india, the high court cannot interfere with the exercise of a discretionary power vested in the inferior court or tribunal, unless its findings or order is clearly perverse or patently unreasonable.17. for the reasons mentioned above, no interference in called for with the impugned order dated 30.9.2004 (annexure 4) and the judgment dated 7.10.2004 (annexure .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-01-2004
Reported in : (2004)3MLJ74; 137STC117(Mad)
..... , 1977), the court observed as under:-' this definition also shows that the expression signifies 'things and rights considered as having a money value'. even incorporeal rights like trade marks, copyrights, patents or rights in personam capable of transfer or transmission, such as debts, are also included in its ambit.' the court, in the later part of the said judgment, again observed ..... as follows:- ' similarly, patents, copyrights and other rights in rem which are not rights over land are also included within the meaning of movable property.' c. volume 112 stc 370 (commissioner of sales tax .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-29-2004
Reported in : 2005(2)MhLj800
..... totally perverse conclusion which are contrary to law settled by the apex court and thus, the reviewing authority has committed manifest error of law and its findings of fact are patently perverse. in fact, the reviewing authority has exercised jurisdiction not otherwise available to it. in such circumstances, the argument of tenant cannot be accepted and such errors can be corrected ..... should not ordinarily interfered with by the high court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the court is satisfied that finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. the apex court has held that the high court should not interfere with the finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take different view on the material .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-01-2004
Reported in : (2005)2UPLBEC1374
..... rank list to get appointment against the available vacancies, had b.ed. candidates been excluded from the selections. the impugned judgment of the division bench is both illegal, inequitable and patently unjust. the t.t.c. candidates before us a appellants have been wrongly deprived of due chance of selection and appointment. the impugned judgment of the division bench, therefore, deserves ..... departure was made in considering the b.ed. candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of t.t.c. candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue, the recruitment authorities were well aware that candidates with qualification of t.t.c. and b.ed. are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Sep-08-2004
..... any delaying tactics. it is also contended that the grounds under sections 132(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the act are not satisfied, therefore, the search and seizure was patently illegal. it was lastly contended that if the order of reassessment shows that the expenditures were not 3 crores but were 5 crores, then there would be no case of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Mar-23-2004
..... say that in a matter like the one at hand civil court's jurisdiction would not be barred in the following cases :(1) when the order under rule 18 is patently illegal or without jurisdiction;(2) where the remedy provided by the regulation to adjudge the objection raised is not sufficient;(3) where complicated questions relating to title are involved; or .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Dec-23-2004
..... is plainly without authority and the order dated 13.5.2002 of the appellate bench having nullified the procedure prescribed by the industrial disputes act, the said order discloses a patent error which would require correction in exercise of the power of review. lastly, it has been submitted by mr. mahanta, learned counsel, that the petitioner has been prejudiced by the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-09-2004
Reported in : 2004(4)ALLMR401; 2004(2)MhLj980
..... appointed on 14th june. 1971. though the petitioner was promoted as an assistant head master on 3rd december 1984, the promotion of the petitioner as an assistant head master was patently unlawful since this was an isolated post to which the petitioner could not be promoted on the basis that he belonged to a reserved category. hence, upon the disposal of .....Tag this Judgment!