Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 317 (2.46 seconds)
Documents citing Kishan Prakash Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 March, 2001

M/S Holystar Natural Resources Pvt. ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 17 January, 2014

"18. ... The legislatures in India have been held to possess wide power of legislation subject, however, to certain limitations such as the legislature cannot delegate essential legislative functions which consist in the determination or choosing of the legislative policy and of formally enacting that policy into a binding rule of conduct. The legislature cannot delegate uncanalised and uncontrolled power. The legislature must set the limits of the power delegated by declaring the policy of the law and by laying down standards for guidance of those on whom the power to execute the law is conferred. Thus the delegation is valid only when the legislative policy and guidelines to implement it are adequately laid down and the delegate is only empowered to carry out the policy within the guidelines laid down by the legislature. The legislature may, after laying down the legislative policy, confer discretion on an administrative agency as to the execution of the policy and leave it to the agency to work out the details within the framework of the policy. When the Constitution entrusts the duty of law-making to Parliament and the legislatures of States, it impliedly prohibits them to throw away that responsibility on the shoulders of some other authority. An area of compromise is struck that Parliament cannot work in detail the various requirements of giving effect to the enactment and, therefore, that area will be left to be filled in by the delegatee. Thus, the question is whether any particular legislation suffers from excessive delegation and in ascertaining the same, the scheme, the provisions of the statute including its preamble, and the facts and circumstances in the background of which the statute is enacted, the history of the legislation, the complexity of the problems which a modern State has to face, will have to be taken note of and if, on a liberal construction given to a statute, a legislative policy and guidelines for its execution are brought out, the statute, even if skeletal, will be upheld to be valid but this rule of liberal construction should not be carried by the court to the extent of always trying to discover a dormant or latent legislative policy to sustain an arbitrary power conferred on the executive. ..."
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 7 - Manmohan - Full Document

Y.Akbar Ahmed vs The Secretary on 3 April, 2019

19. Party-in-Person, further submitted that even I.A.No.24616 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.310 of 1996, r/w. I.A.Nos.115064 of 2018, 20735 of 2019 and 11484 of 2019, in the matter of Prakash Singh and Others Vs. Union of India, there is no reference to the reply affidavit, dated 14/1/2018, filed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and that therefore, there is sufficient cause for him to infer that the reply affidavit, dated 14/8/2018 has not been filed.
Madras High Court Cites 90 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vanashakti And Anr vs National Board For Wildlife And 8 Ors on 16 July, 2019

120. Shri. Anil Singh learned Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of the Union of India defended the amendment dated 30th December 2015 amending CRZ Notification 2011 and the CRZ clearance granted by MoEF on 11 th May 2017 by prefacing his arguments that he adopts the arguments advanced by Shri. D.J. Khambata Senior Counsel and Shri.S.G.Aney Senior Counsel on behalf of MCGM and Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. Learned Counsel submitted that long term environmental benefits and paramount collective interest were taken into account by MoEF. The material appraised by MoEF while amending CRZ Notification 2011 on 30th December 2015 and CRZ clearance granted on 11th May 2017, which were referred to by said ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2019 03:22:13 ::: jdk/pdp 166 wpl.560.19.gr.j.doc learned Senior Counsel, showed a proper application of mind. He highlighted that EAC, which was an independent expert body constituted under EIA-2006, had categorically observed that 'the project can provide advisable solution to ameliorate traffic congestion and consequent health hazards. This can also generate a large recreational space. The main purpose of this project is to reduce the burden of traffic and transport system of Mumbai. Counsel urged that this showed that the experts Kishan Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors had weighed the competing claims and had highlighted that the main purpose of the project was to reduce the burden of traffic and transport system in Mumbai.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Society For Improvement, Greenery And ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 16 July, 2019

120. Shri. Anil Singh learned Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of the Union of India defended the amendment dated 30th December 2015 amending CRZ Notification 2011 and the CRZ clearance granted by MoEF on 11 th May 2017 by prefacing his arguments that he adopts the arguments advanced by Shri. D.J. Khambata Senior Counsel and Shri.S.G.Aney Senior Counsel on behalf of MCGM and Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. Learned Counsel submitted that long term environmental benefits and paramount collective interest were taken into account by MoEF. The material appraised by MoEF while amending CRZ Notification 2011 on 30th December 2015 and CRZ clearance granted on 11th May 2017, which were referred to by said ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2019 03:22:43 ::: jdk/pdp 166 wpl.560.19.gr.j.doc learned Senior Counsel, showed a proper application of mind. He highlighted that EAC, which was an independent expert body constituted under EIA-2006, had categorically observed that 'the project can provide advisable solution to ameliorate traffic congestion and consequent health hazards. This can also generate a large recreational space. The main purpose of this project is to reduce the burden of traffic and transport system of Mumbai. Counsel urged that this showed that the experts Kishan Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors had weighed the competing claims and had highlighted that the main purpose of the project was to reduce the burden of traffic and transport system in Mumbai.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Worli Koliwada Nakhwa And Anr vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 16 July, 2019

120. Shri. Anil Singh learned Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of the Union of India defended the amendment dated 30th December 2015 amending CRZ Notification 2011 and the CRZ clearance granted by MoEF on 11 th May 2017 by prefacing his arguments that he adopts the arguments advanced by Shri. D.J. Khambata Senior Counsel and Shri.S.G.Aney Senior Counsel on behalf of MCGM and Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. Learned Counsel submitted that long term environmental benefits and paramount collective interest were taken into account by MoEF. The material appraised by MoEF while amending CRZ Notification 2011 on 30th December 2015 and CRZ clearance granted on 11th May 2017, which were referred to by said ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2019 03:22:02 ::: jdk/pdp 166 wpl.560.19.gr.j.doc learned Senior Counsel, showed a proper application of mind. He highlighted that EAC, which was an independent expert body constituted under EIA-2006, had categorically observed that 'the project can provide advisable solution to ameliorate traffic congestion and consequent health hazards. This can also generate a large recreational space. The main purpose of this project is to reduce the burden of traffic and transport system of Mumbai. Counsel urged that this showed that the experts Kishan Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors had weighed the competing claims and had highlighted that the main purpose of the project was to reduce the burden of traffic and transport system in Mumbai.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

The Conservation Action Trust And 2 Ors vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 16 July, 2019

120. Shri. Anil Singh learned Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of the Union of India defended the amendment dated 30th December 2015 amending CRZ Notification 2011 and the CRZ clearance granted by MoEF on 11 th May 2017 by prefacing his arguments that he adopts the arguments advanced by Shri. D.J. Khambata Senior Counsel and Shri.S.G.Aney Senior Counsel on behalf of MCGM and Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. Learned Counsel submitted that long term environmental benefits and paramount collective interest were taken into account by MoEF. The material appraised by MoEF while amending CRZ Notification 2011 on 30th December 2015 and CRZ clearance granted on 11th May 2017, which were referred to by said ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2019 03:22:33 ::: jdk/pdp 166 wpl.560.19.gr.j.doc learned Senior Counsel, showed a proper application of mind. He highlighted that EAC, which was an independent expert body constituted under EIA-2006, had categorically observed that 'the project can provide advisable solution to ameliorate traffic congestion and consequent health hazards. This can also generate a large recreational space. The main purpose of this project is to reduce the burden of traffic and transport system of Mumbai. Counsel urged that this showed that the experts Kishan Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors had weighed the competing claims and had highlighted that the main purpose of the project was to reduce the burden of traffic and transport system in Mumbai.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Prakash Laxman Chanderkar vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 16 July, 2019

120. Shri. Anil Singh learned Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of the Union of India defended the amendment dated 30th December 2015 amending CRZ Notification 2011 and the CRZ clearance granted by MoEF on 11 th May 2017 by prefacing his arguments that he adopts the arguments advanced by Shri. D.J. Khambata Senior Counsel and Shri.S.G.Aney Senior Counsel on behalf of MCGM and Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. Learned Counsel submitted that long term environmental benefits and paramount collective interest were taken into account by MoEF. The material appraised by MoEF while amending CRZ Notification 2011 on 30th December 2015 and CRZ clearance granted on 11th May 2017, which were referred to by said ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2019 03:22:53 ::: jdk/pdp 166 wpl.560.19.gr.j.doc learned Senior Counsel, showed a proper application of mind. He highlighted that EAC, which was an independent expert body constituted under EIA-2006, had categorically observed that 'the project can provide advisable solution to ameliorate traffic congestion and consequent health hazards. This can also generate a large recreational space. The main purpose of this project is to reduce the burden of traffic and transport system of Mumbai. Counsel urged that this showed that the experts Kishan Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors had weighed the competing claims and had highlighted that the main purpose of the project was to reduce the burden of traffic and transport system in Mumbai.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Shweta Wagh And 8 Ors vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 16 July, 2019

120. Shri. Anil Singh learned Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of the Union of India defended the amendment dated 30th December 2015 amending CRZ Notification 2011 and the CRZ clearance granted by MoEF on 11 th May 2017 by prefacing his arguments that he adopts the arguments advanced by Shri. D.J. Khambata Senior Counsel and Shri.S.G.Aney Senior Counsel on behalf of MCGM and Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. Learned Counsel submitted that long term environmental benefits and paramount collective interest were taken into account by MoEF. The material appraised by MoEF while amending CRZ Notification 2011 on 30th December 2015 and CRZ clearance granted on 11th May 2017, which were referred to by said ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2019 03:22:23 ::: jdk/pdp 166 wpl.560.19.gr.j.doc learned Senior Counsel, showed a proper application of mind. He highlighted that EAC, which was an independent expert body constituted under EIA-2006, had categorically observed that 'the project can provide advisable solution to ameliorate traffic congestion and consequent health hazards. This can also generate a large recreational space. The main purpose of this project is to reduce the burden of traffic and transport system of Mumbai. Counsel urged that this showed that the experts Kishan Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors had weighed the competing claims and had highlighted that the main purpose of the project was to reduce the burden of traffic and transport system in Mumbai.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Smt. Janabai W/O. Bhimanagouda Patil vs Shri. Laxman S/O. Kadappa Naik on 21 September, 2022

5. The civil Court, while answering the question whether the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties, has found that these properties are indeed ancestral properties not only in the light of the evidence tendered by the appellant and Smt.Laxmibai (Sri.Sarveerappa' wife) and the contents of the RTC for the suit schedule properties but also the defense of Sri.Laxman Kadappa Naik, the eldest son of Sri.Kadappa. The civil Court has allocated shares applying the principle of notional partition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PRAKASH AND OTHERS VS. PHULAWATI AND OTHERS supra, but Smt.Sunanda P. Patil is justified in her submission that with the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA -6- RFA No. 100141 of 2021 supra, a daughter who is born after 1956 would be entitled to an equal share with the son as a coparcener. The civil Court's judgment and decree on this score cannot be sustained and will have to be interfered.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next