Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 147 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Common Causea Registered Society vs Union Of India & Others on 25 September, 1996

Shri I.P. Shankaran vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police C.B.I. ... on 31 March, 1999

34. The two decisions mentioned above viz. (i) Subramanian's case and (ii) Ram Chandra Trivedi's case make it clear that it is the law laid down by the Constitution Bench, which would be binding on us, particularly when the subsequent decision of a smaller Bench specifically makes it clear that the directions issued by it were in addition to and without prejudice to the law laid down in the earlier decisions.
Bombay High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ishwar Saran Shukla And Anr. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 24 March, 1998

9. A perusal of the aforesaid directions shows that action can be taken under the said clause where apart from other conditions, it is found that the offence is a bailable one. In the present case the accused persons are facing trial for offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 has not defined the bailable/non-bailable offences, for the purpose we have to revert to Part 2 of Schedule I of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the 2nd Part of the said Schedule in case of offences against other laws where the offence is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than seven years or where offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards, but not more than seven years, the offence is non-bailable, and where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, the offence is bailable. Under Section 3 clause (1) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, in case of first offence under the Section, the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both, and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees. Since the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards, the offence is clearly a non-bailable offence. Since the benefit under clause (c) of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India (supra) is available in cases of bail-able offences only, the proceedings against the accused persons cannot be terminated. The learned Magistrate rightly refused to drop the proceedings.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - M L Singhal - Full Document

Bangalore Turf Club Limited vs State Information Commissioner on 13 January, 2021

10. It would be apposite in this context to refer to the recent decision of this Court in Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India [(1996) 6 SCC 530] , in which one of us (Kuldip Singh, J.) reiterated the need to act fairly and justly in the matter of grant of largesses, pointing out that any arbitrary distribution of national wealth would violate the law of the land.
Karnataka High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 1 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Subhash Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 12 February, 1999

7. The petitioner, appeared in all the three cases before the trial Magistrate on 1-10-1993 when he was ordered to be released on bail. It was on 4-12-1996 that he filed three separate applications in all the three cases thereby requesting that since the aforesaid cheques which are subject matters of the criminal cases pending trial were, admittedly, issued on 5-2-92, 3-1-92 and 31-12-91 respectively whereas notices of the dishonoured disputed cheques were issued resultanting, as late as on 28-7-92, in lodging criminal complaints before the trial Court which, ultimately, culminated into taking cognizance of the aforesaid offence as late as on 14-7-93 and has lastly, it was alleged, though quite wrongly and contrary to the provisions of Section 138 of the Act, that there was provision for only six months' imprisonment provided for the offence punishable hereunder and, consequently, it was prayed that in view of the provisions of Section 468(2)(b) Cr. P.C. by which the trial Court was barred from taking cognizance of offences categorized in Sub-section. (2) of the said section and hence the impugned order dated 14-7-1993 was liable to be set aside. Besides, in addition thereto, on the basis of the decision of the apex Court rendered in Common Cause v. Union of India, 1996 Cr LR (SC) 430 : 1996 Cri LJ 2380, also all these cases were liable to be dropped.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

U/A 143(1) Of Constitution vs Of India on 27 September, 2012

11. A similar conclusion would also emerge in a slightly different situation. This Court in a case dealing with a challenge to the allotment of retail outlets for petroleum products [Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 530] has held, that Article 14 of the Constitution of India, does not countenance discretionary power which is capable of being exercised arbitrarily. While accepting that Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits a reasonable classification having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not permit the State to pick and choose arbitrarily out of several persons falling in the same category. A transparent and objective criteria/procedure has to be evolved so that the choice amongst those belonging to the same class or category is based on reason, fair play, and non-arbitrariness. Envisage a situation as the one expressed above, where by reasonable classification based on some public purpose, the choice is limited to a set of private persons, amongst whom alone, the State has decided to dispose of natural resources. Herein again, in my opinion, if the participation of private persons is for commercial exploitation exclusively for their individual gains, then the State’s endeavour to maximize revenue alone, would satisfy the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14 and 39(b) of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next