Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Bachan Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 July, 2008

Sharafat Sheikh @ Md. Ayub vs Union Of India & Anr. on 2 September, 2022

838-841 of 1999  Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl Appeal No. 755 of 2011  Sama Aruna vs. State of Telangana, [(2018) 12 SCC 150]  Ram Lal Ratan Lal Anjana vs. Union of India, [2003 CrlJ 1976]  Kehar Singh vs. Union of India, [1998 CrlJ 301] Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA W.P.(Crl) 1213/2021 Page 7 of 21 Signing Date:02.09.2022 17:00Shakil Ahmad Ansari vs. Union of India, [1996 (38) DRJ (DB) 385]  Abdul Razak Nannekhan Pathan vs. Police Commissioner, [1989 (4) SCC 43]  Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj vs. The State of Delhi, [AIR 1953 SC 318]  Mohd. Yousuf Rather vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir,[(1979) 4 SCC 370]  Dharmendra Sugan Chand Chelawat vs. Union of India & Ors., [1990 AIR 1196]  Bachan Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., [1991 (31) ECC 16]  Chaju Ram vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, [1971 AIR 263]  Sainaba vs. State of Kerala, [O.P. No. 9623/ 02]  Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs. Union of India & Ors., [AIR 1981 SC 728]  Nasir Ahmad Mir vs. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr., W.P (crl.) No. 674/2019Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima vs. State of Manipur & Ors., Crl.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - R Bhatnagar - Full Document

Vikas Chaudhary vs The State Of Delhi on 21 April, 2023

20. The imperative to conduct evaluation of mitigating circumstances at the trial stage, “to avoid slipping into a retributive response to the brutality of the 16 crime” which this court noticed was frequently occurring in several cases, was underlined, and it was categorically held that the court had to elicit information from the state and the accused. The prosecution also is mandated to produce before the Sessions Court, material disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused, which is to preferably be collected beforehand. At the stage when the trial court is informed that the prosecution intends to press for imposition of capital sentence, the evaluation should be insisted upon; the state is under a duty to present all objective materials, as mentioned in Manoj (supra), having regard to the decision in Bachan Singh (supra) and importantly, the fact that it is in a position to actually gather the materials. Its task is to present the facts- relating to the accused, which are favourable and unfavourable, for the court to impose a just sentence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 8 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Anr vs State Of Assam & Ors on 30 November, 2012

13. After so stating, the learned single Judge dealt with issues whether the appointments were ab-initio void, whether the relevant rules of recruitment were relaxed in respect of the special batch at the time of making their recruitment and what was the permissible limit of relaxation and whether there can be deemed relaxation. Delving into the said aspects, the learned single Judge ruled that while appointing the special batch, the rules of recruitment were completely shelved, no order of relaxation was passed under Rule 23 relaxing the provisions contained in Rule 5(1)(c) of the 1966 Rules; and that there could not have been any deemed relaxation. The learned single Judge referred to various pronouncements of this Court with regard to relaxation and deemed relaxation and expressed the view that the Special Batch was recruited, ostensibly, on the ground that the department was in need of young officers in the grade of Deputy Superintendent of Police, but the officers recruited were as old as 50 years, and, thus, the very purpose for which the proposal was mooted stood defeated. The writ court discussed the ratio laid down in Bachan Singh v. Union of India[3], Narender Chadha v. Union of India[4] and J.C. Yadav v. State of Haryana[5] and held that contrary to the facts of the case of J.C. Yadav (supra), wherein the relaxation of the rules could be justified by the Government, the State-respondent had, in the obtaining factual matrix, miserably failed to show any justification to relax the rules and in any case could not have relaxed the rules to such an extent to make it nugatory. It was also observed that when the Cabinet Memorandum had failed to receive the approval of the Cabinet, the then DGP, Assam, in consultation with the Chairman of the Commission, could not have, through the back-door and with the help of an authority like the Commission, flouted the relevant rules and made the appointments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 191 - D Misra - Full Document

Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Swadhin Kumar Banerjee & Ors on 29 July, 2013

On the other hand, Mr. Tarakeshwar Pal, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties, has vehemently opposed the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and he has relied on the decisions of Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank & ors. reported in 2007(1) CLJ(SC) 151, Bachan Singh v. Union of India & ors. reported in 2008(5) Supreme 101 particularly paragraph no.14, Smt. Nipa Dhar (Nee Ghosh) v. National Aviation Company of India Ltd. & ors. reported in (2011)2 WBLR(Cal) 793 and Shalimar Paints Ltd. v. First Industrial Tribunal reported in 2012(5) CHN(Cal) 160 and thus, he has submitted that since there is no direct evidence against the respondent no.1, the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Mandal - Full Document

N.Mohamed Kani vs The Secretary on 18 September, 2013

In Bachan Singh v. Union of India reported in 2008 (9) SCC 161, the Supreme Court reiterated that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against the decision, but is confined to the decision-making process. Judicial review is not an appeal, but a review of the manner, in which, the decision is made. The Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision-making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself.
Madras High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next