Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-27-2019
..... rule of law arising in the case before it:10. e need only add that the broad lines of the general principles on which the court should act having been clearly 6 james baggs case (1572) 77 er12717 (2008) 2 scc418 (1962) 1 scr753laid down, their application to the facts of each particular case must necessarily be dependent on a variety of individual ..... agreement dated 22.04.1999, consent award dated 05.08.2004 read with restated and revised power purchase 146 agreement dated 25.06.2007, act 1948, act 1999 and act 2003 would not be hurdle in respect of permanent court of arbitration proceedings. v) rule is made absolute in the preceding terms. no costs. vi) in view of the disposal of the main matter ..... so framed have been placed before the west bengal legislature, they have become a part of the statute. that being so, in our opinion the high court sitting as an appellate court under the 1998 act could not have gone into the validity of the said regulations its appellate power. in exercise of therefore 43. in view of the above settled position of ..... facts which must govern the proper exercise of the discretion of the court, and that in a matter which is thus pre-eminently one of discretion, it .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-26-2019
..... respect of issue relating to treating executive engineers post in the bwssb board as group-a.6. the citations are; in the case of a. manoharan and others reported in (2008) 3 scc641 para nos.22 to 25 are in support of proposition that administrative decision cannot over ride statute. the relevant para nos.22 to 25 reads as under:22 ..... , legal proceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing act or regulation had not been passed.56. the following decisions of the supreme court are aptly applicable:73. g. ekambarappa and others. vs. excess profits tax officer, bellary reported in air1967sc1541in para no.4 reads as under ..... scc online ker 66 (para nos.4, 5 and 6). another decision in the case of a. manoharan and others vs. union of india and others reported in 2008 (3) scc641(para nos.16, 18 and 19, 22 to 25).29. in the case of m.s.surendra reddy reported in (2015) 8 scc410para nos. 26, 27 and 29 ..... dated:07. 03.2002.31. in the case of t. kaliamurthi and another vs. five giro thaikakal wakf and others reported in 2008 (9) scc306para no.49 held as under: section 107 provides that nothing in the limitation act, 1963 would apply to any suit for possession of immovable property, comprised in any wakf or for any interest in such property must .....Tag this Judgment!