Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1074 (3.98 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 15 December, 1995

Sucha Lal vs The Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd And Ors on 19 September, 2022

In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (1996) 10 SCC 304, this Court held: (SCC p. 314, para 13) "13. It is next submitted before us that the amended rules are arbitrary, unreasonable and cause undue hardship 7 of 24 ::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 02:37:12 ::: CWP No. 716 of 2013 (O&M) -8- and, therefore, violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Although the protection of Article 19(1)(g) may not be available to the appellants, the rules must, undoubtedly, satisfy the test of Article 14, which is a guarantee against arbitrary action. However, one must bear in mind that what is being challenged here under Article 14 is not executive action but delegated legislation. The tests of arbitrary action which apply to executive actions do not necessarily apply to delegated legislation. In order that delegated legislation can be struck down, such legislation must be manifestly arbitrary; a law which could not be reasonably expected to emanate from an authority delegated with the law-making power.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Ifb Agro Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs The Excise Commissioner And Ors. on 26 September, 2006

Similarly, in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that a citizen has no fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as a beverage and State can prohibit completely the trade or business in potable liquor since the trade or business in liquor is res extra commercium.The State may also, according to the Supreme Court, create monopoly in itself for trade or business of such liquor. Therefore, even if today the State Goverunent takes a policy-decision of conferring monopoly to the Government-owned-company in the business of intoxicants, the writ-petitioner cannot complain against such act alleging infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Calcutta High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Bgp Products Operations Gmbh And Anr. vs Uoi And Ors. on 14 December, 2018

―14. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review [vide : Asif Hameed v. State of J&K - 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd v Union of India 1990 (3) SCC 223;Khoday Distilleries v State of Karnataka 1996 (10) SCC 304, Balco Employees Union v Union of India 2002 (2) SCC 333), State of Orissa v Gopinath Dash 2005 (13) SCC 495 and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v State of Andhra Pradesh 2006 (4) SCC 162].‖
Delhi High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

M/S Ummaid Singh Ramchandra vs Karshi Upaj Mandi (Fal Sabji) on 31 July, 2019

"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:59 AM) (15 of 17) [CMA-1988/2019] Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review (vide Asif Hameed v. State of J&K [1989 Supp (2) SCC 364] , Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1990) 3 SCC 223] , Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1996) 10 SCC 304] , BALCO Employees' Unionv.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Jigarbhai Amratbhai Patel vs State Of Guarat on 19 September, 2019

This Court after referring to several decisions of this Court including Mcdowell's case (supra), Khoday Distilleries Ltd. & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others (1996) 10 SCC 304, Ajay Hasia & Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Others (1981) 1 SCC 722, Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Others v. Union of India & Others (2004) 4 SCC 311, Malpe Vishwanath Achraya & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Another (1998) 2 SCC 1 etc. felt that the question whether arbitrariness and unreasonableness or manifest arbitrariness and unreasonableness being facets of Article 14 of the Constitution are available or not as grounds to invalidate a legislation, is a matter requiring examination by a larger Bench and accordingly, referred the matter for consideration by a Larger Bench.
Gujarat High Court Cites 285 - Cited by 7 - A S Dave - Full Document

Tata Consultancy Services Limited vs State Of Kerala on 23 January, 2020

7. We broadly agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge except on one aspect, which we will deal with a little later. It has been rightly argued by some of the petitioners that they do not take up the ground of undue hardship to challenge the amendment to the Rules, rightly so. Nor can the measure directing uploading of details in the System manned by the Department said to be against the statute, i.e., the Minimum Wages Act. As has been held in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1996) 10 SCC 304], a subordinate legislation can be questioned on the ground of unreasonableness not in the sense of it being 'not reasonable', but in the sense that it is manifestly unjust. There can be alleged no manifest arbitrariness especially insofar as the details sought for in Form XIV, already have to be recorded in the physical form in Registers maintained as provided under the Act and the Rules. Form V under the Kerala Rules is the 'Over-time Register For Workers' which require the normal working hours the overtime work carried out and the normal as also the overtime wages to be recorded. The 'Muster Roll' in Form VI records the entire details of the workman. Form XI the 'Register of Wages' already requires all deductions W.A.979 of 2018 & - 140 -
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next