Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (2.82 seconds)
Documents citing Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs Ashalata S. Guram on 25 September, 1986

M Sanjeeva Shetty vs Hilary Mascarenhas Since Deceased By ... on 19 January, 2021

Fakruddin M.A. Baker (1977) 4 SCC 587, Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde (1978) 2 SCC 573, Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha v. Janardhan Mahadeo Kalan (1982) 3 SCC 514, Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram (1986) 4 SCC 447, Venkatlal G. Pittie v. Bright Bros (P) Ltd. (1987) 3 SCC 558, State of Maharashtra v. Milind 19 (2001) 1 SCC 4, State v. Navjot Sandhu (2003) 6 SCC 641, Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash (2004) 3 SCC 682, Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj (2008) 9 SCC 1 and Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar (2010) 1 SCC 217"
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R M Dhariwal (Huf) vs Union Of India on 4 January, 2022

On the same lines is the decision of the Apex Court in Chandravarkar Seetharathna Rao v. Ashalatha S. Guram reported in (1986) 4 SCC 447 which reiterates the above position while explaining that the effect of "notwithstanding" clause would merely amount to declaring that inspite of the provision mentioned in the non-obstante clause the provision would have its full operation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - S S Yadav - Full Document

Gold Coins Hotels And Resorts Ltd. vs Sri . Mohammed Nissar on 12 February, 2013

32. The aforesaid two decisions and few other decisions, namely, Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram20, State of Maharashtra v. Milind21 and Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash22, came to be considered by this Court in Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj23 and this Court held : (Tilak Raj case23, SCC pp.10-11, para 38) "38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of 13 law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law."
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - N Ananda - Full Document

Sri Jodhraj vs Mrs Maya M Shah on 11 March, 2013

32. The aforesaid two decisions and few other decisions, namely, Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram20, State of Maharashtra v. Milind21 and Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash22, came to be considered by this Court in Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj23 and this Court held : (Tilak Raj case23, SCC pp.10-11, para 38) 6 "38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law."
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - N Ananda - Full Document

Ani Technologies Private Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2024

NC: 2024:KHC:17771 WP No. 24501 of 2022 C/W WP No. 24486 of 2022 postgraduate medical courses, 50% reduction at the highest of the general benchmarks by way of permissible concession would enable the State authorities to reduce the qualifying marks for passing such entrance examination up to 50% of 50% i.e. 25%. In other words, if qualifying marks for passing the entrance examination for being admitted to postgraduate medical courses is 50% for a general category candidate, then such qualifying marks by way of concession can be reduced for the reserved category candidates to 25% which would be the maximum permissible limit of reduction or deviation from the general benchmarks. Meaning thereby, that a reserved category candidate even if gets 25% of the marks at such a common entrance test he can be considered for being admitted to the reserved vacancy for which he is otherwise eligible. But below 25% of benchmarks for the reserved category of candidates, no further dilution can be permitted. In other words, concession or facility for the reserved category of candidates can remain permissible under Article 15(4) up to only 50% of benchmarks prescribed for the general category candidates. The State cannot reduce the qualifying marks for a reserved category candidate below 25% nor can it go up to zero as tried to be suggested by Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh as that would not amount to the process of shortlisting but would in fact amount to longlisting or comprehensive listing of such reserved category of candidates as seen earlier. Any such attempt to further dilute the qualifying marks or benchmarks for the reserved category of candidates below 25% of the general passing marks would be violative of the provisions of Article 15(4) as laid down by the Constitution Bench in M.R. Balaji case [AIR 1963 SC 649 : 1963 Supp (1) SCR 439, 466-467] and would also remain unreasonable and would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Within this sliding scale of percentages between 25% and 50% passing marks appropriate benchmarks for passing the entrance test examination can be suitably fixed for SC/ST and OBC candidates as the exigencies of the situation may require. But in no case the qualifying marks for any of these reserved categories of students can go below 25% of the general passing
Karnataka High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

Lakshmamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 October, 2018

(c) In all these cases, the motions of no-confidence are moved after the expiry of 30 months; there is no case wherein the second motion of no-confidence is moved so as to attract the bar of two year moratorium period prescribed under third proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 49; therefore, all these cases fall under sub- section (2) read with sub-section (1) and the first proviso thereto. That being so, the challenge to the vires of sub-section (2) does not W.A.Nos.844/2018 & 853/2018 & Connected matters 130 merit consideration. The counsel have relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court in support of the submission as to how a non- obstante clause should be interpreted including that in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs. Ashalatha S Guram: (1986) 4 SCC 447.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next