Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 176 (2.26 seconds)
Documents citing S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006

Dr. Bharath Shetty Y. S/O Dr. Y. Chandra ... vs The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University ... on 22 March, 2007

19. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the Chancellor has obtained certain materials such as attendance register from the College and that the petitioners were not given an opportunity in this regard. It is true that the material obtained by the Chancellor was not put to the petitioners. However, even without looking into the attendance register obtained from M.V.J. Medical College, it is very clear from the aforesaid Government Order that Dr. Vijaya Kumar was not a full-time teacher in the College. Therefore, the Chancellor was right in holding that Dr. Vijaya Kumar was not a teacher within the definition of Section 2(m) of the Act and was ineligible to be elected as a member of the Senate of the University from 'Teachers other than Professors' constituency. The decision relied on by Sri Nanjunda Reddy in the case of S.N. Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka reported in 2006 AIR SCW 800 is not applicable to the facts of this case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

M/S. Kjs Ahluwalia vs State Of Odisha & Others : Opp. Parties on 22 December, 2020

71. The Supreme Court in S.N. Chandrashekar and Anr. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 208, relying on its earlier decision in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. R. Hanumaiah, (2005) 12 SCC 508, held that the order passed by the statutory authority, it is trite, must be judged on the basis of the contents thereof and not as explained in affidavit.
Orissa High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 2 - M Rafiq - Full Document

Firoz Khan vs The Union Of India on 17 October, 2020

In view of the above discussion and considering that the reason has not been assigned in the impugned order and in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney" and "S.N. Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka" [supra], the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law and, accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.05.2016 is quashed.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Rajiv Mohan Mishra vs City And Industrial Development ... on 2 November, 2018

The pedestrians and people belonging to weaker sections of the society, who cannot afford the luxury of air- conditinoed cars, are the worst victims of pollution. They suffer from skin diseases of different types, asthma, allergies and even more dreaded diseases like cancer. It can only be a matter of imagination how much the Government has to spend on the treatment of such persons and also for controlling pollution and adverse impact on the environment due to traffic congestion on the roads and chaotic conditions created due to illegal and unauthorised constructions. This Court has, from time to time, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasized that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme, etc on the ground that he has spent substantial ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:30:33 ::: 84 amount on construction of the buildings, etc.- K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi, G.N.Khajuria (Dr.) v DDA, M.I.Builders (P) Ltd.v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, M.C.Mehta V. Union of India and S.N.Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka.
Bombay High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 8 - A Oka - Full Document

Mayura Maru vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Urban ... on 2 November, 2018

The pedestrians and people belonging to weaker sections of the society, who cannot afford the luxury of air- conditinoed cars, are the worst victims of pollution. They suffer from skin diseases of different types, asthma, allergies and even more dreaded diseases like cancer. It can only be a matter of imagination how much the Government has to spend on the treatment of such persons and also for controlling pollution and adverse impact on the environment due to traffic congestion on the roads and chaotic conditions created due to illegal and unauthorised constructions. This Court has, from time to time, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasized that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme, etc on the ground that he has spent substantial ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:30:58 ::: 84 amount on construction of the buildings, etc.- K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi, G.N.Khajuria (Dr.) v DDA, M.I.Builders (P) Ltd.v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, M.C.Mehta V. Union of India and S.N.Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka.
Bombay High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Vivek Velankar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 November, 2018

The pedestrians and people belonging to weaker sections of the society, who cannot afford the luxury of air- conditinoed cars, are the worst victims of pollution. They suffer from skin diseases of different types, asthma, allergies and even more dreaded diseases like cancer. It can only be a matter of imagination how much the Government has to spend on the treatment of such persons and also for controlling pollution and adverse impact on the environment due to traffic congestion on the roads and chaotic conditions created due to illegal and unauthorised constructions. This Court has, from time to time, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasized that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme, etc on the ground that he has spent substantial ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:31:21 ::: 84 amount on construction of the buildings, etc.- K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi, G.N.Khajuria (Dr.) v DDA, M.I.Builders (P) Ltd.v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, M.C.Mehta V. Union of India and S.N.Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka.
Bombay High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Shri. Bhausaheb Baban Khedkar vs Maharashtra Industrial Development ... on 2 November, 2018

The pedestrians and people belonging to weaker sections of the society, who cannot afford the luxury of air- conditinoed cars, are the worst victims of pollution. They suffer from skin diseases of different types, asthma, allergies and even more dreaded diseases like cancer. It can only be a matter of imagination how much the Government has to spend on the treatment of such persons and also for controlling pollution and adverse impact on the environment due to traffic congestion on the roads and chaotic conditions created due to illegal and unauthorised constructions. This Court has, from time to time, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasized that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme, etc on the ground that he has spent substantial ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:30:46 ::: 84 amount on construction of the buildings, etc.- K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi, G.N.Khajuria (Dr.) v DDA, M.I.Builders (P) Ltd.v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, M.C.Mehta V. Union of India and S.N.Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka.
Bombay High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Mariadassou Philomene Dominique vs The Member Secretary on 11 January, 2019

It can only be a matter of imagination how much the government has to spend on the treatment of such persons and also for controlling pollution and adverse impact on the environment due to traffic congestion on the roads and chaotic conditions created due to illegal and unauthorized constructions. This Court has, from time to time, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasized that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme etc. on the ground that he has spent http://www.judis.nic.in 27 substantial amount on construction of the buildings etc. - K. Ramadas Shenoy V. Town Municipal Council, Udipi 1974 (2) SCC 506, G.N. Khajuria(Dr.) V. DDA (1995) 5 SCC 762, M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu 1999 (6) SCC 464, Friends Colony Development Committee V. State of Orissa 2004 (8) SCC 733, M.C. Mehta V. Union of India 2006 (3) SCC 399 and S.N. Chandrasekhar V. State of Karnataka 2006 (3) SCC 208.
Madras High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next