Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 459 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Province Of Bombay vs Kusaldas S. Advani And Others on 15 September, 1950

Shr1 Radeshyam Khare & Another vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others on 30 September, 1958

be given to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects; and (3) they should have a duty to act judicially. So far there is no dispute. The question raised in this case is what do the words " a duty to act judicially " mean. If the statute in express terms says that the decision should be arrived at judicially, then it is an obvious case. If it does not expressly say so, can the intention of the Legislature be gathered or implied from the terms of the statute ? If it can be so gathered, what are the guiding factors for implying such a duty on the part of a tribunal or authority ? In this context a brief discussion of some of the 'relevant cases will be helpful. This Court, as I have already stated, restated the law laying down the criteria for ascertaining whether an act is a judicial act or not in Kusaldas's case (1). There the question was whether the Provincial Government was acting judicially in making the order of requisition under a. 3 of the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance (Bom. Ordinance V of 1947). The material part of the section under discussion read as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 61 - Full Document

L.N. Mathur vs The Chancellor, Lucknow University, ... on 30 November, 1984

In the case of Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani, (AIR 1950 SC 222) (supra) it was observed that the real test which distinguishes a quasi-judicial act from an administrative act is the duty to act judicially. It was held that in order that a body may satisfy the required test, it is not enough that it should have legal authority to determine the question affecting rights of subject, there must be superadded to that characteristic the further characteristic that the body has the duty to act judicially. In cases where the authority was found to act quasi-judicially, the ruling points out, there were some parties making a claim under the Statute and some parties opposing such claim and the Statutory authority was empowered to adjudicate upon the matters in issue between the parties, and to grant or refuse the claim. It was observed that the point to note was that in each of those cases there was a lis, i.e., a proposition of a party making a claim and an opposition of another party making a counterclaim, and the Statutory authority was authorised to decide the question and in those cases the decision was regarded as quasi-judicial It is plain enough that there must be parties making claims and the claims must relate to 'rights'. Where any of these ingredients is missing, the proceeding cannot be quasi-judicial. As already mentioned, neither the Selection Committee nor the Executive Council had made a 'claim' before the Chancellor, nor the disagreement on the recommendations could constitute counter-claims in respect of a 'right'. The only right could be that of any appointment and that right had not accrued. The only right that had accrued to the petitioner was right to be considered. There was, therefore, no lis before the Chancellor.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indian National Congress (I) vs Institute Of Social Welfare & Ors on 10 May, 2002

Now, coming to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that none of the decisions relied upon are of any assistance to argument of learned counsel for the respondent. The decision of this Court in Province of Bombay vs. Kusaldas Advani (supra) has been dealt with by us in the foregoing paragraph and is of no help to the case of the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 189 - V N Khare - Full Document

Suraj S/O Balbhim Shelke vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 15 September, 2016

10, (1924), 1 KB 1: 1923 All ER Rep 150 (Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani) 11, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 222 held that the legal principles, laying down when an act of a statutory ::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/09/2016 01:01:42 ::: {16} CR.wp 630.15.odt authority would be a quasi judicial act, which emerge from the aforesaid decisions are that (a) a statutory authority empowered under a statute to do any act,
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - R M Borde - Full Document

Thakur Prasad vs Beni Prasad (Now Deceased) & Others on 25 March, 2015

28.Learned members of the bar also submitted that as larger bench judgments, referred to above, particularly Province of Bombay Vs. Kusaldas S. Advani and others, Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and others, Shri Radeshyam Khare and another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, Nagendra Nath Bora and another Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and others, and Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. P.N. Sharma and another, have not been taken into consideration, therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam's case is not binding.
Allahabad High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 1 - A K Mishra - Full Document

West Bengal Settlement Kanungoe ... vs Mrs. Bella Banerjee And Ors. on 14 August, 1951

20. It does not appear to me that 'PROVINCE OF BOMBAY v. K. S. ADVANI', (1950) SCR 621, is of any assistance to the Advocate-General. It might be contended that where it is said that if a State Government is satisfied that land is required for a public purpose there is no objective test and therefore the satisfaction of the State Government would conclude the matter. That might or might not be the true construction of such words. But since the Constitution came into force we have to consider whether such legislation is permissible or not. Can the Centre or a State legislate empower the authorities to acquire a citizen's lands compulsorily merely because they are honestly satisfied that it is needed for a public purpose though the purpose may not be in fact a public purpose?
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Gullapalli Nageswara Rao And Others vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ... on 5 November, 1958

As my learned brothers aforesaid have stated the relevant facts in detail, it is not necessary for me to repeat them, but as I differ from my learned brother Subba Rao, with whom some of my colleagues on the Constitution Bench have agreed, and for whose opinions, I have the greatest respect, I should state my reasons for differing from them and for agreeing with our brother Wanchoo. It may be taken as the settled view of this Court that the question whether a certain decision envisaged in a statute, is judicial or quasijudicial or only administrative in character, must de- pend upon the terms of the statute law itself, apart from any pre-conceived notions about the functions of a court or other tribunals vested with the duty and jurisdiction to decide controversies as a judicial body, vide Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani (1), Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division(2) and Express Newspapers Limited v. Union of India (3).
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 319 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next