Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 71 (1.59 seconds)
Documents citing Jayendrasingh Anirudhsingh Jadeja vs Gujarat State Machine Tools ... on 7 April, 2000

Santosh Kumar Pandey vs State Of U P And 17 Others on 7 May, 2019

The observations by the learned authors to the same effect in the 7th Edn. were relied upon by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat20. In that matter the appellant was produced before the Executive Magistrate, Gondal, on the allegation that certain weapons were recovered from him. The provisions of TADA had been invoked. The appellant's application for bail was rejected. A specific point was taken that the DSP had not given prior approval and the invocation of TADA was non est. The DSP, instead of granting prior approval, made a report to the Additional Chief Secretary, and asked for permission to proceed under TADA. The Court in paras 13, 14, 15 has held this to be a clear case of "dictation", and has referred to Wade and Forsyth on Surrender, Abdication and Dictation."
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharat Sudambhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 2020

29.15 In the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma (supra), the Apex Court referred to the judgment in the case of Anirudhusinhji Jadeja (supra), wherein it has been held that a statutory authority vested with jurisdiction must exercise it according to its own discretion; discretion exercised under the directions or instruction of some higher authority is failure to exercise discretion altogether. Executive Officers may in exercise of their statutory discretions take into account considerations of public policy and in some context policy of a minister or the government as a whole when it is relevant, being a relevant factor in weighing the policy, but they are not absolved from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual cases, unless explicit statutory provision has been made for instructions by a superior to bind them. Relevant extracts of paragraphs 15 and 16 read thus:
Gujarat High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 1 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Future Gaming And Hotel Services Pvt. ... vs The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And 3 Ors on 17 February, 2021

In Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat reported in (1995) 5 SCC 302 the DSP did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 20-A(1) of TADA. He abdicated his jurisdiction and referred the matter to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department on 17.03.1995 requesting for permission to invoke the provisions of Section 3 and 5 of TADA. On 18.03.2995, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department gave sanction/ consent to apply provision of TADA. The Apex Court held that the case was of exercising power on the basis of external dictation though the dictation came on the prayer of the DSP, he did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by the Statute and did not grant approval of recording of information under TADA in exercise of his discretion.
Gauhati High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - P K Deka - Full Document

Shree Kadod Dudh Utpadka Sahkari Mandli ... vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 2020

29.15 In the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma (supra), the Apex Court referred to the judgment in the case of Anirudhusinhji Jadeja (supra), wherein it has been held that a statutory authority vested with jurisdiction must exercise it according to its own discretion; discretion exercised under the directions or instruction of some higher authority is failure to exercise discretion altogether. Executive Officers may in exercise of their statutory discretions take into account considerations of public policy and in some context policy of a minister or the government as a whole when it is relevant, being a relevant factor in weighing the policy, but they are not absolved from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual cases, unless explicit statutory provision has been made for instructions by a superior to bind them. Relevant extracts of paragraphs 15 and 16 read thus:
Gujarat High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next