Nhava Sheva Bandar Kamgar Sanghatana v. Union of India & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. Vijay S. Gharat for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Kumar with Mr. Asif Lampwala and Mr. L. Samuel i/b M/s. Advani & Co. for Respondent No.2. .... CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J.& DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J, 28th July, 2004. P.C. : The Petitioner has filed the Petition against Respondent No.2, the Board of Trustees, Jawahar Nehru Port Trust, a statutory body constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondent No.2 has started operations with two terminals, one for handling container and one for dry bulk materials. The bulk comprises of two bulk berths one multipurpose berth and a berth for small vessels. In the writ petition the Petitioner has given reference to legal opinions given by Judges and senior advocates. We are of the considered opinion that writ petition cannot be based on legal opinions given by lawyers and Judges. The time for submitting tender document was extended for all bidders. There is no discrimination. On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no merit in this Petition. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 28 Jul 2004. The bench was D Y CHANDRACHUD.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.