S.K.SEN
VIJAY SINGH NAHATA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
( 1 ) THE case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner became an approved contractor under the Eastern Railway and was allowed Registration No. being 28356. A copy of the communication dated 24th May, 1977 whereby the petitioner was placed on the list of approved contractors initially for a period of 2 years provisionally has been annexed with the writ petition.
( 2 ) THEREAFTER, the tenure of the petitioner as registered contractor with the concerned respondents was extended from time to time by communications made to that effect. Copies of the extensions granted to the petitioner by the respondent authorities as registered contractor have been annexed with the petition marked as 'b'.
( 3 ) IN terms of the conditions laid down by the respondent for supply for electrical goods and equipments the petitioner from time to time duly supplied the said goods as required by the respondent No. 3 since 1977 which were received by them and used and/or utilised by the respondents without raising any objection with regard thereto.
( 4 ) ON or about 11th April, 1990 search and seizure was conducted under Sections 103 and 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the residence
REFERRED TO : Tata Celluler v. Union of India
L.I.C. v. Consumer Education and Research Centre
Kumari Shrilekha Vodyarthi etc. v. State of U. P.
Followed on : Kumari Shrilekha Vodyarthi etc. v. State of U. P.
Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation
M/s. Hindustan Sugar Mills v. The State of Rajasthan
Moninder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
Followed on : Moninder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.