Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19252 (3.68 seconds)
Documents citing Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) ... vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 6 December, 1984

T.V.S. Suzuki Employees' Union vs Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation ... on 8 January, 1998

6. The decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has exhaustively considered the case-law on the subject including the decision in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India, (supra), and upheld the validity of the impugned notification. We have gone through the decision of the Karnataka High Court particularly the various factual materials noticed therein, the consideration undertaken and the conclusions arrived at and we are in respectful agreement with the same and in our view the reason assigned by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Paragraphs 10.1 to 12.5 of the unreported judgment to sustain the validity of the impugned notification are well merited and have our concurrence too.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - D Raju - Full Document

Builders Association Of Navi Mumbai And ... vs Sandeep Thakur And Ors on 22 December, 2023

84. When can delegated legislation be said to be unreasonable. The petitioners for that must establish the facts which support the plea of unreasonableness. The unreasonableness must be seen by merely reading the impugned Legislation itself and not by enquiring as to what material justifies the delegated legislation. When you use the expression unreasonable, it must be understood that it is unreasonable not akn 20 ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2023 07:29:38 ::: PIL.123.2016.doc in the sense of it not being reasonable but in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary. (See Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Private Limited vs. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 : A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 515. The Court when testing the constitutional validity of a piece of delegated legislation on the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution, can examine whether the criterion adopted is reasonable. "Reasonableness, for purposes of judging whether there was an excess of power or an arbitrary exercise of it, is really the demonstration of a reasonable nexus between the matters which are taken into account in exercising a power and the purposes of exercise of that power.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sandeep Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 22 December, 2023

84. When can delegated legislation be said to be unreasonable. The petitioners for that must establish the facts which support the plea of unreasonableness. The unreasonableness must be seen by merely reading the impugned Legislation itself and not by enquiring as to what material justifies the delegated legislation. When you use the expression unreasonable, it must be understood that it is unreasonable not akn 20 ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2023 07:29:32 ::: PIL.123.2016.doc in the sense of it not being reasonable but in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary. (See Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Private Limited vs. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 : A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 515. The Court when testing the constitutional validity of a piece of delegated legislation on the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution, can examine whether the criterion adopted is reasonable. "Reasonableness, for purposes of judging whether there was an excess of power or an arbitrary exercise of it, is really the demonstration of a reasonable nexus between the matters which are taken into account in exercising a power and the purposes of exercise of that power.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S Jangaiah vs M/O Agriculture on 3 September, 2019

18 OA 021/687 & 1160 /2018 respondents has been fair and reasonable. Legitimate expectations of the applicants have been met within the ambit of rules laid down in the relevant OMs and as per law. In fact, the issue raised by the applicants does attract the Principle of res judicata since it was adjudicated by this Tribunal in a series of OAs filed before this Tribunal by the applicants. XII) Consequently, in view of the aforementioned circumstances, Tribunal does not find any merit in the OAs filed. Therefore they are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anuj Mahendra Banthia And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru. ... on 13 February, 2026

In State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy [State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517] after considering the law laid down by this Court earlier in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) [Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 121] , Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India [Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 569] , Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 223] , St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. NCTE [St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. NCTE, (2003) 3 SCC 321 : 5 SCEC 391] , Ramesh Chandra Kachardas Porwal v. State of Maharashtra [Ramesh Chandra Kachardas Porwal v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 722] , Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. [Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd., (1987) 2 SCC 720] and State of Haryana v. Ram Kishan [State of Haryana v. Ram Kishan, (1988) 3 SCC 416] , this Court has laid down certain grounds, on which the subordinate legislation can be challenged, which are as under :
Bombay High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next