Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. vs K. Jayaraman And Ors. on 1 October, 1974

The Academic Society Of Architects vs Council Of Architecture (Coa) on 4 June, 2019

"386. Article 122(1) thus must be found to contemplate the twin test of legality and constitutionality for any proceedings within the four walls of Parliament. The fact that U.P. Assembly case (Special Reference No. 1 of 1964) [AIR 1965 SC 745 : (1965) 1 SCR 413 sub nom Keshav Singh, In re] dealt with the exercise of the power of the House beyond its four walls does not affect this view which explicitly interpreted a constitutional provision dealing specifically with the extent of judicial review of the internal proceedings of the legislative body. In this view, Article 122(1) displaces the English doctrine of exclusive cognizance of internal proceedings of the House rendering irrelevant the case-law that emanated from courts in that jurisdiction. Any attempt to read a limitation into Article 122 so as to restrict the court's jurisdiction to examination of the Parliament's procedure in case of unconstitutionality, as opposed to illegality would amount to doing violence to the constitutional text. Applying the principle of "expressio unius est exclusio alteriu" (whatever has not been included has by implication been excluded), it is plain and clear that prohibition against examination on the touchstone of "irregularity of procedure" does not make taboo judicial review on findings of illegality or unconstitutionality."
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Lic Of India vs Krishna Murari Lal Asthana And Anr Etc. on 31 March, 2016

26. We have been appraised at the Bar that the respondents had harboured hope when the resolution was passed. Their hope, as the learned counsel for the respondents would submit, was not unfounded, inasmuch as the revisions in pension were earlier made by 21 issue of certain circulars issued by the Chairman in exercise of power conferred under Rule 55 of the 1995 Rules. Whether the hope was reasonable or not need not be commented upon, but the fact remains that certain respondents are septuagenarians and they have to fight another round of litigation in the High Court. We feel the pain while remanding the matter, but we have no option as the pleadings are not adequate as it should have been while assailing a constitutional validity of a provision. It is well settled in law that he who assails the constitutional validity of a statutory provision or a rule, has to specially assert the grounds for such challenge. [See State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh11, State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. K. Jayaraman and others12, Union of India v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd.13, State of Haryana v. State of Punjab & another 14]. The purpose of saying all this is as the learned counsel for the respondents would agonizingly contend that the amount of pension the respondents are getting is a paltry sum and it is difficult to sustain in the present day. That apart, the Corporation should have been gracious enough to recognize the services rendered by them and the Union of India should have come with an affirmative response when the resolution was passed by the Corporation. We have already 11 AIR 1964 SC 1135 12 (1974) 2 SCC 738 13 (2000) 2 SCC 223 14 (2004) 12 SCC 673 22 adjudicated the said facet, but as we are remanding the matter to the High Court on a different count. In such a situation, we are of the convinced opinion that the respondents should get certain amount as an interim measure. We had already directed by the order dated 7 th May, 2015 that the Corporation shall pay 20% amount to the individual employees. Mr. Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that the Corporation has already deposited the entire amount without the pay revision before the High Courts of Rajasthan and Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh are concerned regard being had to the order of this Court. As far as the High Court of Delhi is concerned, employees have been paid 20%, as directed by this Court. The said fact is disputed by learned counsel for the respondents after obtaining instructions. The said aspect shall not detain us, for what we are going to direct in praesenti.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - D Misra - Full Document

Jaskaran Singh Brar vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 15 October, 2004

In support of validation of the notification dated January 23, 2004 (Annexure R-1), Shri Dwivedi has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Jayaraman and Ors., 1974 (2) SCC 738, to say that in the absence of an averment on behalf of the petitioners that the aforementioned notification is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, this Court suo motu cannot go into its validity.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 14 - S Kant - Full Document
1   2 3 Next