9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to the reasons for the issuance thereof now placed on an affidavit by the State of Rajasthan, the said judgment Shri Digvijay Cement Co. v. State of Rajasthan [ 1997 (3) TMI 516 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] would, prima facie appear to be binding in so far as it upholds the second contention. Thus the said judgment requires to be considered by a larger Bench, particularly in regard to the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 674 of 1997. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Additional Solicitor-General (Ms. H. Wahi, Aruneshwar Gupta and P.N. Puri, Advocates, with him), for respondent No. 6. H.N. Salve, Senior Advocate (Sushil Kr. Jain, A.P. Dhimija, Umesh Bohare, A. Mishra and L.P. Singh, Advocates, with him), for some respondents. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate (N.M. Sharma, P.D. Tyagi, R.K. Sanghi and R.P. Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree notifications were the subject-matter of civil appeals in this Court and were struck down by a Bench of three learned Judges in Shri Digvijay Cement Co. v. State of Rajasthan [1997] 106 STC 11 (SC); (1997) 5 SCC 406. The court accepted the submissions on behalf of the appellants that these notifications had not been issued in public interest and that they were violative of articles 301 and 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
