Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.43 seconds)

Shri Anur Kumar Jain vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 29 March, 2011

"15. There is another reason also why the submission that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not apply to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, cannot be accepted. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code starts with the words "Nothing in this Code". Thus the inherent power can be exercised even if there was a contrary provision in the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide that inherent jurisdiction can be exercised notwithstanding any W.P.(Crl.)No.80/2010 alongwith connected matters Page 32 of 45 other provision contained in any other enactment. Thus if an enactment contains a specific bar then inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to get over that bar. As has been pointed out in the cases of Madhu Limaye (supra), Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (2000) 1 SCC 168 the inherent jurisdiction cannot be resorted to if there was a specific provision or there is an express bar of law.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 26 - Manmohan - Full Document

A.P.Dairy Dev.Corp.Federation vs B.Narasimha Reddy & Ors on 2 September, 2011

In Indra Sawhney II v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 498, while considering a similar issue regarding preparing a list of creamy layer OBCs, this Court held that legislative declarations on facts are not beyond judicial scrutiny in the constitutional context of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, for the reason that a conclusive declaration could not be permissible so as to defeat a fundamental right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 318 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

K.Shyam Sunder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 July, 2011

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Indra Sawhney's case (supra), has held that the Court can tear the veil to decide the real nature of the statute if the facts and circumstances warrant such a course. If a law was passed only 'ostensibly', but was in truth and substance, one for accomplishing an unauthorised object, the Court, it was held would be entitled to tear the veil and the declaration by the legislature would not preclude a judicial examination.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Bijender Singh S/O Shri Rajbir Singh vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 30 August, 2011

6. Following the recommendations of the Mandal Commission the Government of India took a decision to provide reservation to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes in the Civil posts/services. Thereafter the above decision was modified on the recommendation of an expert committee, which was appointed following the decision in Indira Sawhney and others V. Union of India and others, (2000) 1 SCC 168. Following the recommendations of the expert committee orders were issued on 13.08.1990 on various aspects of reservation for the OBCs. The Office Memorandum of the DOP&T dated 13.08.1990 as modified on 08.09.1993 and 13.01.1995, inter alia, mentioned that:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bijender Singh S/O Shri Rajbir Singh vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 30 August, 2011

6. Following the recommendations of the Mandal Commission the Government of India took a decision to provide reservation to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes in the Civil posts/services. Thereafter the above decision was modified on the recommendation of an expert committee, which was appointed following the decision in Indira Sawhney and others V. Union of India and others, (2000) 1 SCC 168. Following the recommendations of the expert committee orders were issued on 13.08.1990 on various aspects of reservation for the OBCs. The Office Memorandum of the DOP&T dated 13.08.1990 as modified on 08.09.1993 and 13.01.1995, inter alia, mentioned that:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1