Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 64 (1.37 seconds)
Documents citing Ganesh Bank, Kurundwad Ltd. And Ors vs The Union Of India And Ors on 28 August, 2006

Sh. Chaman Lal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 13 January, 2010

The aforesaid law is well defined by the Apex Court in Ganesh Bank, Kurundwad Limited & others v. Union of India & others, (2006) 10 SCC 645 where the duty of the Courts is laid down to confine itself to the question of illegality, error in law, violation of principles of natural justice, unreasonable and unfair decision. Fairness is a sine qua non of administrative action and has to be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 211 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Exclusive Capital Limited vs Ms. Kanta Agarwala on 21 November, 2025

In this regard reliance has been placed on 'Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd. Vs. Union of India' (2006) 10 SCC 645 wherein the term good reasons has been interpreted in the context of Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and it was inter alia hold that it is a term of wide amplitude required to be construed in terms of the primary objective of the act itself.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.Ve.Shanmugam vs The Chief Secretary on 28 April, 2023

19.We are not concerned about the questions (a) to (d) for the reason that the petitioner does not require the copy of the documents. With regard to the powers of the Court for judicial review, it is held in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 10 SC 645, Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd., Vs. Union of India & Others that judicial review over the State actions is possible only under the following grounds: (i) illegallity (ii) irrationality (iii) procedural impropriety in administrative action. If it is established that the decision taken was irrational or outrageous, the Court can interfere in such matters. In the said case, the Court came to the conclusion that in the light of the materials furnished, there is no illegality or irregularity in the decision taken by the State for withdrawal of security for the petitioner and thus, dismissed the petition. It is seen from the order that the file containing the minutes of the various security committee starting from 01.01.2005 till 31.08.2006 was circulated for the perusal of the Court with a request not to discuss it to others. The reason is that it is a privileged document. The Court also sustained the claim of privilege in respect of the file produced by the State, for the perusal of the Court. However, in the case 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6632 of 2022 before hand, it is claimed that the Security Review Committee meeting was held on 04.10.2021, but the finding of the Committee is not produced for the perusal of this Court. Thus, this Court is deprived of knowing the reasons forming basis for arriving at the decision of withdrawal of the police protection given to the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G Chandrasekharan - Full Document

Dr. Sashi Bhushan Acharya And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 12 October, 2007

In this respect a reference may be made to the case of Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering amalgamation of two Banks reiterated the principle that while factual scenario involves have been rightly considered and discussed prior to taking a decision of amalgamation, the same does not necessitate interference by any Court of law. Before considering the objectives of the policy, if interest of the land owners/common citizens are protected by providing single window system, the same would be definitely "good reason" for effecting such Policy decision.
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - I Mahanty - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next