Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (2.54 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Tamilnadu Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 26 April, 1991

The State Of Karnataka By Its Chief ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu By Its Chief ... on 9 December, 2016

The majority in State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka and Ors. with Union Territory of Pondicherry v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (supra) has opined that this Court has jurisdiction to decide the parameters, scope, authority and jurisdiction of the tribunal. It has been further held that it is the judiciary i.e. the courts alone that have the function of determining authoritatively the meaning of a statutory enactment and to lay down the frontiers of jurisdiction of any body or tribunal constituted under the statute.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 77 - Cited by 8 - D Misra - Full Document

M. Sreenivasulu Reddy And Ors. vs Kishore R. Chhabria And Ors. on 19 April, 1999

In the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu's case, , the court was concerned with the question as to whether the remedy of filing civil suit was available in spite of certain procedure made available under the revenue law and after referring to the judgments starting from Dhu-labhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh , the Supreme Court held that ouster of jurisdiction has to be specifically provided for.
Bombay High Court Cites 256 - Cited by 7 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Partha Sarathi Rej And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 1 October, 1996

(1) SCC 310, (b) Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandajiwami Suvarna Jayanti Matotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. v. V.R. Rudani, and Ors. (1989-II-LLJ-324) (SC), (c) Workmen v. I. I. T. I. Cycles of India Ltd. and Ors. (1995-II-LLJ-688)(SC) (d) Rope Textiles Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 199, (e) Election Commission of India v. Union of India and Ors. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 643, (f) LIC of India and Anr. v. Consumer Education & Research Centre and Ors. (g) Jogendra Lal Saha v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 654, (h) Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. , (i) Hindustan Lever Limited v. B.N. Dongre and Ors. and (i) State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 1991 Supp (i) SCC 240, in support of his contention that a writ of mandamus can be issued in the instant case as prayed for by the petitioner. I have perused all the decisions and I am afraid that none of them has any bearing on the point at issue. It is really not understood how these decisions could be of any help to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above.
Calcutta High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vedire Venkata Reddy And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 November, 2004

17. Another limb of the same objection is that the writ petition has raised a dispute relating to water, therefore, in view of Article 262(2) of the Constitution of India read with Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 jurisdiction of the Court is barred. Reference in that behalf was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Tamilnadu C.N.V.V.N.U.P. Sangam v. Union of India, , State of Tamilnadu v. State of Karnataka, (1991) Suppl. 1 SCC 240 and Re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, (1993) Suppl. 1 SCC 96. No doubt the writ petition would not be maintainable provided a water dispute as defined in Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956 is raised therein. Whether such a dispute is raised in the writ petition is the question to be answered.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 30 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Swati Vasant Patil And Anr. vs Kandivli Education Society And Ors. on 2 November, 2001

27. A joint reading of the two clauses will mean that first the private school Management will have to obtain the permission of the Deputy Director of Education and thereafter against the order of cancellation of appointment an appeal will lie to this committee. In the instant case, it is contended by the petitioners that such permission has not been sought and hence the termination is void ab initio. Now, the question has to be decided as to whether this prior permission is necessary. It is an aspect which has a bearing on the stage wherefrom the Grievance Committee will start functioning. Since it is a matter bearing upon jurisdiction of a particular authority, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka & others, reported in 1991 Suppl. (1) S.C.C. 240, the courts have alone the function of determining authoritatively the meaning of a statutory enactment and to lay down the frontiers of jurisdiction of any body or Tribunal constituted under the statute or scheme.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Shankar Sharma vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 11 April, 2002

Though in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 the statement has been made that the procedure contemplated under Regulations 7 to 11 has been substantially complied with, during the course of arguments Mr. Soli Sorabjee, the learned Attorney General made categorical statement that the said statement made in paragraph 43 of the reply affidavit should not be construed that the respondent No. 1 the SEBI Board has made up its mind about the procedural requirement before issuance of notice under Regulation 13 and while deciding the said question, the respondent No. 1 shall not be influenced at all by the statement made in paragraph 43 of the reply affidavit. We have no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the learned Attorney General. It is true, as has been held by the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu's case (supra) that this Court has jurisdiction to decide the parameters, scope, authority and jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under an Act made by the Parliament, however, for the reasons which we have already indicated above, this is not a fit case at this stage to determine the question as to whether for issuance of notice under Regulation 13 of FUTP Regulations, 1995 the procedure contemplated under Regulations 10 and 11 is pre-requisite, This question, necessarily has to be considered by the SEBI Board in the light of the submissions made by the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 and if the said petitioners are ultimately aggrieved by the order of the SEBI Board, they may agitate the question in appeal under Section 15T before the SAT and, if necessary, under Section 15Z before this Court. The interpretation of Regulation 13 of FUTP Regulations, 1995 put forth by Mr. P. Chidambaram, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, cannot be said to be the only interpretation and, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the issuance of notice dated 10-1-2002 is totally and wholly without jurisdiction and suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction. The argument raised by the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 about non-compliance of the procedure contemplated under Regulations 7, 10 and 11 of FUTP Regulations, 1995 and its effect on the issuance of notice dated 10-1-2002 can, therefore, be conveniently examined, considered and decided by the SEBI Board whose order will be subject to scrutiny further by the SAT if necessary and by this Court under Section 15Z, if occasion arises. It is in this view of the matter that we do not deem it necessary to consider various provisions of SS Regulations, 1992 and FUTP Regulations, 1995 relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners as any observation by us may directly or indirectly influence the decision that may be taken by the SEBI Board on the objections raised by the petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kesha Appliances P. Ltd. And Ors. vs Royal Holdings Services Ltd. And Ors. on 30 November, 2005

12. Then a question arose as to where a particular Act had created a right or liability and had also provided a forum for enforcement of such right or for protection from enforcement of a liability without any authority in law, whether a citizen could approach a court. It may pointed out that many statues have created certain rights or liabilities and have also provided the remedial measures in respect thereof. But such statutes have not touched the common law rights of the citizen. But there are some states, which in public interest affect even the common law rights or liabilities of the citizen, which were in the nature of existing rights. The distinction between the two types of rights or liabilities is subtle in nature but at the same time very vital." as well as the another judgment of the apex court in the case State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in 1991 (1) S.C.C. 240. and has cited the following para's of the said judgment:
Bombay High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Chandrakant Jagannath Ghodke, ... vs Commissioner For Co-Operation & ... on 24 April, 2003

35. Relying on State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1991) Supp (1) SCC 240, it was submitted that Court alone can interpret and determine the jurisdiction. We are in agreement with the above submission. It is clear to us that interpretation of law is the exclusive function of the Judiciary. But, according to us, the impugned action taken by the first respondent is in consonance with law and as per the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 56 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Shirish Finance & Investment (P.) Ltd. vs M. Sreenivasulu Reddy on 28 September, 2001

In State of Tamil Nadu's case (supra), the grievance of the Appellant -State of Tamil Nadu was that the Tribunal under the Interstate Water Disputes Act, 1956, wrongly decided that it had no jurisdiction to entertain any interim application, as such dispute was not referred to in the reference made by the Central Government. On behalf of the Slate of Karnataka, an objection was raised relying on Section 11 of the aforesaid Act, and Article 262 of the Constitution of India, that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal against the impugned order of the Tribunal. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the scope of the powers of the Tribunal under the Act, and in case the Tribunal has wrongly refused to exercise jurisdiction under the Act, then the Court was competent to set it right and direct the Tribunal to entertain such application and to decide the same on merits. The Tribunal being a statutory authority, the Court had jurisdiction to decide the parameters, scope, authority and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is the judiciary, i.e., the courts alone that have the function of determining authoritatively the meaning of a statutory enactment and to lay down the frontiers of jurisdiction of any body or Tribunal constituted under the statute.
Bombay High Court Cites 184 - Cited by 26 - Full Document
1   2 Next