Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 145 (5.83 seconds)
Documents citing Distt. Registrar & Collector, ... vs Canara Bank Etc on 1 November, 2004

Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 6 May, 2016

If the procedure prescribed does not satisfy the test of Article 14, e.g. if it is arbitrary, oppressive or fanciful, it would be no procedure at all within the meaning of Article 21 (See District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad vs. Canara Bank). So also, considering that the concept of reasonableness permeates Article 14, a procedure which is unreasonable cannot be termed as a procedure so established by law.
Bombay High Court Cites 161 - Cited by 2 - A Oka - Full Document

Haresh M. Jagtiani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2016

If the procedure prescribed does not satisfy the test of Article 14, e.g. if it is arbitrary, oppressive or fanciful, it would be no procedure at all within the meaning of Article 21 (See District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad vs. Canara Bank). So also, considering that the concept of reasonableness permeates Article 14, a procedure which is unreasonable cannot be termed as a procedure so established by law.
Bombay High Court Cites 161 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 August, 2017

39) Some learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, argued that the law laid down by this Court in some earlier decided cases though not referred for consideration be also overruled while answering the questions referred to this Bench whereas some senior counsel also made attempts to attack the legality and correctness of Aadhar Scheme in their submissions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 294 - Cited by 384 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Petronet Lng Ltd vs Indian Petro Group And Another on 13 April, 2009

31. The latest in the series of judgments of the Supreme Court was District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank,(2005) 1 SCC 496. Recollecting the opinions in its previous judgments, the court applied the right of privacy, in considering search and seizure provisions. The Andhra Pradesh amendment to the Stamp Act, 1899 was assailed inter alia as permitting any person to "enter upon any premises", public or private, and seize and impound documents. The Supreme Court declared that state action - either executive policy or legislative enactments had to be reasonable.
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 6 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018

136) In the case of District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and Anr. v. Canara Bank and Ors.62, this Court struck down provisions of a legislation on grounds that it was too intrusive of citizens’ right to privacy. The case involved an evaluation of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act which authorized the collector to delegate “any person” to enter any premises in order to search for and 62 (2005) 1 SCC 496 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 & connected matters Page 224 of 567 impound any document that was found to be improperly stamped.
Supreme Court of India Cites 661 - Cited by 238 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next