Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (2.97 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Mangalam Organics Ltd vs Union Of India on 24 April, 2017

N Satyanarayana vs M/O Electronics And Information ... on 11 February, 2021

AIR 1990 SC 334; State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki & others: AIR 1992 SCC 1546; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishna Murthi and Ors: AIR 1976 SC 123; Mangalam Organics Ltd. vs. Union of India: (2017) 7 SCC 221 and Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory Himachal Pradesh: AIR 1971 SC 2399; Dhananjay Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & others: Full Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) Page 13 of 14 OA 453/2021 No.45 of 2014 dated 21.05.2019). Since increase in the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years can only be made by an amendment to the 2007 Rules, which power is legislative in character, the relief which the petitioner seeks, for a mandamus to enhance the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years, cannot be granted."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prakash Chandra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 10 October, 2019

AIR 1992 SCC 1546; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishna Murthi and Ors: AIR 1976 SC 123; Mangalam Organics Ltd. vs. Union of India: (2017) 7 SCC 221 and Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory Himachal Pradesh: AIR 1971 SC 2399; Dhananjay Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & others: Full Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.45 of 2014 dated 21.05.2019). Since increase in the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years can only be made by an amendment to the 2007 Rules, which power is legislative in character, the relief which the petitioner seeks, for a mandamus to enhance the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years, cannot be granted.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nv Nageswara Rao vs M/O Agriculture on 6 December, 2023

(Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India: AIR 1990 SC 334; State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki & others: AIR 1992 SCC 1546; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishna Murthi and Ors: AIR 1976 SC 123; Mangalam Organics Ltd. vs. Union of India: (2017) 7 SCC 221 and Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory Himachal Pradesh: AIR 1971 SC 2399; Dhananjay Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & others: Full Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.45 of 2014 dated 21.05.2019). Since increase in the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years can only be made by an amendment to the 2007 Rules, which power is legislative in character, the relief which the petitioner seeks, for a mandamus to enhance the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years, cannot be granted."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D Srinivasa Vara Prasad vs M/O Agriculture on 6 April, 2021

(Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India: AIR 1990 SC 334; State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki & others: AIR 1992 SCC 1546; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishna Murthi and Ors: AIR 1976 SC 123; Mangalam Organics Ltd. vs. Union of India: (2017) 7 SCC 221 and Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory Himachal Pradesh: AIR 1971 SC 2399; Dhananjay Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & others: Full Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.45 of 2014 dated 21.05.2019). Since increase in the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years can only be made by an amendment to the 2007 Rules, which power is legislative in character, the relief which the petitioner seeks, for a mandamus to enhance the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years, cannot be granted. The cadre restructure is one such policy matter of the respondents, where in the Tribunal cannot issue directions as sought for by the applicant. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in the OA. Hence the Original Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M Sudhakar vs M/O Communications on 10 March, 2021

(Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India: AIR 1990 SC 334; State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki & others: AIR 1992 SCC 1546; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishna Murthi and Ors: AIR 1976 SC 123; Mangalam Organics Ltd. vs. Union of India: (2017) 7 SCC 221 and Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory Himachal Pradesh: AIR 1971 SC 2399; Dhananjay Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & others: Full Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.45 of 2014 dated 21.05.2019). Since increase in the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years can only be made by an amendment to the 2007 Rules, which power is legislative in character, the relief which the petitioner seeks, for a mandamus to enhance the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years, cannot be granted.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N V Nageswara Rao vs M/O Agriculture on 10 November, 2021

(Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India: AIR 1990 SC 334; State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki & others: AIR 1992 SCC 1546; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishna Murthi and Ors: AIR 1976 SC 123; Mangalam Page 6 of 8 OA No.609/2015 Organics Ltd. vs. Union of India: (2017) 7 SCC 221 and Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory Himachal Pradesh: AIR 1971 SC 2399; Dhananjay Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & others: Full Bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.45 of 2014 dated 21.05.2019). Since increase in the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years can only be made by an amendment to the 2007 Rules, which power is legislative in character, the relief which the petitioner seeks, for a mandamus to enhance the upper age limit from 35 to 42 years, cannot be granted. The cadre restructure is one such policy matter of the respondents, where in the Tribunal cannot issue directions as sought for by the applicant. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in the OA. Hence the Original Application is dismissed with no order as to costs."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Jubliant Ingrevia Limited on 29 March, 2022

"32. On difference between legislative act and quasi-judicial act, reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mangalam Organics Limited v. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 221, which draws clear distinction between administrative orders and quasi judicial orders and also quasi judicial orders and acts of subordinate legislation. The scope of judicial review in the case of subordinate legislation and administrative orders is different. Most importantly, legislative powers cannot be sub-delegated unless specifically permitted but administrative powers can be sub- delegated. The scheme of the Rules as understood postulates a quasi judicial determination by the Designated Authority, which gives and submits its final finding report. The said report is binding and becomes final for the Central Government in case of negative determination not to impose anti-dumping duty. In that sense, this is the final opinion i.e. "order of determination" of the Central Government. The position is different in case the Designated Authority proposes and recommends imposition of duty, in which event there is further examination and then final determination. While doing so, the Central Government can reduce the rate of anti- dumping duty as recommended by the Designated Authority or even not impose anti-dumping duty. We would observe and hold, that the statutory provisions i.e. Section 9A of the CT Act and the Rules, require a quasi judicial determination at the first stage, which subsequently when implemented requires passing of a subordinate legislation, vide a notification for anti dumping duty to be imposed."
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - R Shakdher - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next