Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 386 (4.20 seconds)
Documents citing Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 July, 2005

Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India on 3 June, 2014

25.The burden of proving this issue is also on the defendants. It is alleged that no cause of action arises in favour of the plaintiff as the defendants cannot change/rectify the date of birth in the passport of the plaintiff without a declaratory order of the court of competent jurisdiction. The circulars relied upon in this regard by the plaintiff have been perused and it has been held that Exhibit-D1 is applicable to the facts of the present case and that the defendants should have corrected the date of birth in the plaintiff's passport without relegating the party to institute the present suit. Thus, this contention of the defendants is without merit and the defendants have failed to discharge the onus of proving that the plaintiff has no cause of CS No. 95/13 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. 18/20 action as against the defendants. This issue is also decided in the negative.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Srs Mining vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 January, 2018

57. The main ground of attack on the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the PMLA is its alleged manifest arbitrariness. The Court is, however, not persuaded to agree with the above submission of the Petitioners for more than one reason. First, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Union of India, the mere possibility that a provision may be abused is not a W.P.(C) 5320/2017 & connected batch matters Page 31 of 48 ground to strike it down under Article 14 of the Constitution. The law in this regard has been explained in a number of decisions. Illustratively, reference may be made to Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (supra) where it was observed as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Lakhwinder Kaur And Otr vs State Of Punjab And Otr on 16 March, 2016

I am of the view that the Court must also 2 Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & ors. 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 745 7 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2016 00:03:15 ::: CRL. MISC. No.M-34045 OF 2013 (O&M) -8- be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the additional accused. List of the articles entrusted to Manjit Kaur and Harwinder Kaur, reproduced above, is completely absurd. It is unheard that TV is given to the unmarried sister-in-law along with four bangles and fridge. The list of articles allegedly entrusted to Harwinder Kaur @ Rano, married sister-in-law of the complainant shows that two watches were given. Then 4 tolas of gold set is alleged to have been given along with 251 steel utensils. I am of the view that wild allegations have been leveled and the same cannot be believed. During investigation, the police found that no case is made out against Manjit Kaur and Harwinder Kaur. I am of the view that the conclusion drawn by the police is absolutely correct. Even a plain reading of the FIR shows that wild allegations were leveled without any basis and entire family of the husband was roped in, including married and un-married sisters-in-law."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A Chaudhry - Full Document

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 9 February, 2023

The principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Sushil Kumar Sharma (supra) apply to the facts of this case. In our view, the petitioner has not made out a case of even possibility of abuse of the amendment inserted by amendment inserting Section 10A to the Fair Compensation Act and even if there is any possibility of abuse of the provisions of law, the same cannot be a ground for invalidating a legislation. It is not the case of the petitioner that by inserting Section 10A the State Government has acted arbitrarily or malafide.
Bombay High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 9 February, 2023

The principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Sushil Kumar Sharma (supra) apply to the facts of this case. In our view, the petitioner has not made out a case of even possibility of abuse of the amendment inserted by amendment inserting Section 10A to the Fair Compensation Act and even if there is any possibility of abuse of the provisions of law, the same cannot be a ground for invalidating a legislation. It is not the case of the petitioner that by inserting Section 10A the State Government has acted arbitrarily or malafide.
Bombay High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 9 February, 2023

The principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Sushil Kumar Sharma (supra) apply to the facts of this case. In our view, the petitioner has not made out a case of even possibility of abuse of the amendment inserted by amendment inserting Section 10A to the Fair Compensation Act and even if there is any possibility of abuse of the provisions of law, the same cannot be a ground for invalidating a legislation. It is not the case of the petitioner that by inserting Section 10A the State Government has acted arbitrarily or malafide.
Bombay High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 9 February, 2023

The principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Sushil Kumar Sharma (supra) apply to the facts of this case. In our view, the petitioner has not made out a case of even possibility of abuse of the amendment inserted by amendment inserting Section 10A to the Fair Compensation Act and even if there is any possibility of abuse of the provisions of law, the same cannot be a ground for invalidating a legislation. It is not the case of the petitioner that by inserting Section 10A the State Government has acted arbitrarily or malafide.
Bombay High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 9 February, 2023

The principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Sushil Kumar Sharma (supra) apply to the facts of this case. In our view, the petitioner has not made out a case of even possibility of abuse of the amendment inserted by amendment inserting Section 10A to the Fair Compensation Act and even if there is any possibility of abuse of the provisions of law, the same cannot be a ground for invalidating a legislation. It is not the case of the petitioner that by inserting Section 10A the State Government has acted arbitrarily or malafide.
Bombay High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Manini Kaushik vs The National Rifle Association Of India ... on 15 May, 2024

42. I am in complete agreement with the view taken in Sushil Kumar case [Sushil Kumar v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3660] that the decision, who should represent India in a sporting event, is best left to the experts. In the matters of selecting the best possible candidate to represent India in an international competitive event, there cannot be any interference by this Court in the selection criteria set down by the National Sports Federation concerned and also as to how the relative merits of the different candidates is to be evaluated, which is for the experts to decide and not this Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next