Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing T. Venkatasubbiah Setty vs Commissioner, Corporation Of The City ... on 25 August, 1967

Dhyan Singh vs Director Of Consolidation And Ors. on 28 October, 1975

When the Director did so, and adopted that procedure, the petitioner became entitled as of right to be heard. He enjoyed that right because it was a part of a procedure deliberately adopted by the Director, and the procedure had a statutory basis inasmuch as it was implied within Section 54 that the Director could adopt such procedure as he considered fit. It is not correct to say that the Director had no power to direct issue of such notice. Upon the aforesaid considerations, I am of opinion that the observations relied on in B.K. Abdul Azeez v. State of Mysore, AIR 1957 Mys 12 and T. Venkatasubbiah Setty v. Commr., Corporation of the City of Bangalore, AIR 1968 Mys 251 do not assist the respondents.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R S Pathak - Full Document

C.D. Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. on 18 August, 1982

It is not possible to hold that the petitioner had no knowledge of the resolution. I do not think that such decisions require to be published to individual teachers. Moreover. Article 14 of the Constitution does not require authorities to act arbitrarily in all cases if they have done so in one case : T. Venkatsubbiah Setty V. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Others, Air 1968 Mys. 251 (1).
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1