Qamber Jeevaji S/O Sk. Hatim Jeevaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 June, 2010
Attention is invited to "S. S. Bola v. B. D. Sardana"(supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 106 (6.65 seconds)Documents citing
S.S. Bhola & Ors vs B.D. Sardana & Ors on 11 July, 1997
Dr. Naresh Agarwal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2005
[Reference : Sri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd, v. Broach Borough Municipality and Ors., ; S.S. Bola and Ors. v, B.D. Sardana and Ors., ; Bakhtawar Trust and Ors. v. M.D. Narayain and Ors., ; Dharam Dutt and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., ]. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the legislature cannot negate a prior judgment of the Constitutional Court of Law except by legislative Acts, which alter the very basis of the earlier judgment. Any other attempt would sound the death knell of the rule of Law, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions.
T. Narasimhulu & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 11 May, 2010
It is, thus, clear from the judgment of a larger Bench that in
S. S. Bola & Ors. v. B. D. Sardana & Ors. (supra) that seniority
of a Government servant is not a vested right and that an Act
19
of the State Legislature or a rule made under Article 309 of the
Constitution can retrospectively affect the seniority of a
Government servant. The second contention of Mr. Rao,
therefore, also fails.
Suryachakra Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its ... on 13 July, 2006
In this context, it would be worthwhile to refer to the observation made by the Supreme Court in S.S. Bola v. B.D. Sardana , which clearly explains what is the meaning of a colourable legislation:
B. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman, ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 1 May, 2007
In S.S. Bola and Ors. v. B.D. Sardhana and Ors. also it was laid down that it would be valid for the Legislature to make an enactment with retrospective effect provided no fundamental right is infringed by reason of it taking away the vested right.
Joju M Mampilly vs Union Of on 16 May, 2011
24. It is, thus, clear from the judgment of a larger Bench
that in S. S. Bola & Ors. v. B. D. Sardana & Ors. (supra)
that seniority of a Government servant is not a vested right
and that an Act of the State Legislature or a rule made under
Article 309 of the Constitution can retrospectively affect the
seniority of a Government servant. The second contention
of Mr. Rao, therefore, also fails."
The Aligarh Muslim University Through ... vs Malay Shukla S/O Dr. Ramji Shukla And ... on 5 January, 2006
114. Again in ; S.S. Bola and Ors. v. B.D. Sardana and Ors. laid down that when a particular Rule or the Act is interpreted by a court of law in a specified manner and the law-making authority forms the opinion that that such an interpretation would adversely affect the rights of the parties and would be grossly in equitous and according a new set of rules or law is enacted, it is very often challenged as in the present case on the ground that the legislatures have usurped the judicial power. In such a case the Court has a delicate function to examine the new set of laws enacted by the legislatures and to find out whether in fact the legislatures have exercised the legislative power by merely declaring an earlier judicial decision to be invalid and ineffective or the legislatures have altered and changed the character of the legislation. Following observations were made in paragraph 174 of the judgment:
Public Services Tribunal Bar ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 5 May, 2000
73. Learned Advocate General while replying the arguments of learned Court for the petitioners, Sri K.K. Kalia and Sri Amit Bose, submitted that the case of S.S Bola v. B.D. Sardana (supra) relied upon by the petitioner does not support the contention of the petitioners. They have only relied upon the minority view as indicated in para 108 of the judgment. On the other hand the learned Advocate General has relied upon para 176 of the judgment and further indicated that the validity of the statute cannot be judged purely on the basis of the objects and, reasons nor it could be decided by the Government policy from time to time. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act or Ordinance cannot control the actual words used in the legislation.
Delhi Andaman And Nicobar Islands Civil ... vs Home Affairs on 16 April, 2026
13.9 It is a settled proposition of law, as consistently held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in decisions such as B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana
(supra), V.K. Sood v. Secretary, Civil Aviation (supra), and S.S.
Bola v. B.D. Sardana (supra), that the power under the proviso to
Article 309 is legislative in character; Such rules continue to operate with
full force until displaced by an enactment of the competent legislature;
and the Constitutional scheme does not permit a vacuum in service
jurisprudence. In the present case, it is an admitted position that no
legislation has been enacted by the GNCTD legislature governing the
service conditions or cadre structure of the DASS cadre. Consequently,
the rules framed by the delegatee of the Hon'ble President validly occupy
the field.
Dr Atulpandey vs Home Affairs on 16 April, 2026
13.9 It is a settled proposition of law, as consistently held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in decisions such as B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana
(supra), V.K. Sood v. Secretary, Civil Aviation (supra), and S.S.
Bola v. B.D. Sardana (supra), that the power under the proviso to
Article 309 is legislative in character; Such rules continue to operate with
full force until displaced by an enactment of the competent legislature;
and the Constitutional scheme does not permit a vacuum in service
jurisprudence. In the present case, it is an admitted position that no
legislation has been enacted by the GNCTD legislature governing the
service conditions or cadre structure of the DASS cadre. Consequently,
the rules framed by the delegatee of the Hon'ble President validly occupy
the field.