Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 156 (3.48 seconds)
Documents citing Indira Sawhney vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 December, 1999

M.K. Sanoo vs State Of Kerala on 10 August, 2001

This legal position has been settled by the Apex Court in the decisions reported in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality, (1970) 1 SCR 385, Patel Gordhandas Hargovindas v. Municipal Commissioner, 1964 (2) SCR 608, Indian Aluminium Co. v. State of Kerala, JT 1996 (2) SC 85 and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 2000 (1) SCC 168 and Bench decision of this Court in Sygol Castro v. State of Kerala, 2000 (3) KLT 571. Therefore the contention of the Counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate, the Ordinance and the Act will have the effect of nullifying the judicial pronouncement of this Court cannot hold good. We reject that contention.
Kerala High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Shri Anur Kumar Jain vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 29 March, 2011

"15. There is another reason also why the submission that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not apply to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, cannot be accepted. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code starts with the words "Nothing in this Code". Thus the inherent power can be exercised even if there was a contrary provision in the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide that inherent jurisdiction can be exercised notwithstanding any W.P.(Crl.)No.80/2010 alongwith connected matters Page 32 of 45 other provision contained in any other enactment. Thus if an enactment contains a specific bar then inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to get over that bar. As has been pointed out in the cases of Madhu Limaye (supra), Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (2000) 1 SCC 168 the inherent jurisdiction cannot be resorted to if there was a specific provision or there is an express bar of law.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 26 - Manmohan - Full Document

Delhi High Court Bar Association & Anr. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 9 October, 2013

In (2000) 1 SCC 168 Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, a nine Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that Article 14 enjoins the State to take into account de facto inequalities existent in society and to take affirmative action by either giving preference to the socially and economically disadvantaged persons or by W.P.(C)No.4770/2012 page 329 of 531 inflicting handicaps on those more advantageously placed, in order to bring real equality. The court stated that such affirmative action, though apparently discriminatory, is calculated to produce equality on the broader basis of eliminating de facto inequalities and placing the weaker sections of the community at par with the more powerful sections of the society so that each member of the community may enjoy equal opportunity of using natural endowments to the full.
Delhi High Court Cites 321 - Cited by 10 - G Mittal - Full Document

Dr. Surekha Dabas vs The Union Territory Of Pondicherry on 6 July, 2007

15. In the case on hand, on 09.04.2007, common counselling was conducted for both general and reserved category. The seats earmarked in the open category was two, one for OBC and the other for SC. One Dr. Jayaraj, belonged to general category, who was in Serial No.1 in the merit list did not participate in the counselling and forfeited his seat. In such event, the respondents 1 to 3 ought to have accommodated the fourth respondent in the general category, as she has secured 162 marks, succeed in the general category on the basis of merit on the same day of common counselling, instead, she was wrongly admitted in OBC category. After receipt of representation from the 6th respondent, the respondents 1 to 3 realised the mistake and rectified it in and by the impugned order of re-allocation. The petitioner, who has secured 161 marks i.e., one mark lesser than the fourth respondent. Hence, the impugned re-allocation is in terms of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Indira Sawhany vs. Union of India) 1992 Suppl.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

T.Sidhardha Reddy vs Rajive Kumar Gupta on 5 November, 2020

It was categorically found that the grant of consequential seniority to members of the scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes can be through an Executive order as well. The Bench placed reliance on Indira Sawhney (supra) to hold so. In this regard our attention has been OP (CAT) Nos.212 & 218/2019 -21- drawn to the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, on 21.1.2002, after the 85 th amendment of the Constitution, specifically withdrawing an earlier O.M dated 30.1.1997 which provided that the seniority of those promoted on the basis of or after getting their benefit of reservation were to rank below the seniors in the feeder category notwithstanding the fact that the senior in the feeder category was promoted only on a later date. The office memorandum dated 21.1.2002 (Annexure R.6(f) - see page 311 of the paper book in O.P (CAT) 212/2019) specifically provides that persons promoted against reserved vacancies will continue to enjoy all the benefits of the promotion including consequential seniority.
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India on 7 November, 2022

16.2. Further relying upon 3-Judge bench decision of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India: (2000) 1 SCC 168, the learned counsel has submitted that by providing reservation to forward class, the identity of backward class is erased and therefore, such reservation is illegal, hitting at the roots of the Constitution. Moreover, if the forward class becomes backward, it can come under OBC so as to benefit from reservation. She would reason that the 103rd Constitution Amendment is discriminatory to SCs and STs as the people falling in EWS are approximately five per cent. and for these five per cent. of people ten per cent. of reservation is provided. The learned counsel would further submit that the amendment in question is arbitrary too, for there is no mechanism/procedure laid down for it, as under Article 340, for identification of genuine EWS.
Supreme Court of India Cites 281 - Cited by 5 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Life Corporation Of India vs Permanent Lok Adalat & Anr on 2 November, 2022

In Indira v. Union of India 2005 (3) KLT 1071 , a Single judge of the Kerala High Court held that even though under the Army Act, a person can be said to be a deserter when he is found missing and can also be dismissed for desertion, the situation changes when the presumption of death of such a person becomes available under Section 108 of the Evidence Act. In other words, if a person is declared a deserter and dismissed from service and is not traced out within seven years, then Section 108 of the Evidence Act takes over and all consequences would follow. In other words, presumption of death was held to supersede the finding of desertion.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Hanif And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 October, 2006

Taking note of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 1973 Indlaw SC 537 and in the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India 1999 (55) SCR 229 Their Lordships stated that those were binding decisions which held that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were one of the basic features of the Constitution of India and adherence to those provisions was a must in the process of public employment.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next