Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 111 (2.21 seconds)
Documents citing Naraindas Indurkhya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 18 March, 1974

Suvina B. Redkar vs Government Of Goa And Ors. on 2 August, 1991

172. It is, therefore clear to us that in the adjourned 54th Meeting of the Board no new business which was not circulated to the members could have been transacted, expect by giving a special notice to all the members of the said business. The decision taken by the Board upon the proposal of amalgamation of the planning areas in question in the said adjourned 54th Meeting is thus clearly vitiated. Since the compliance with the requirement of consultation under sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Act is held by us as mandatory, it cannot be said that the Board has been duly consultated by the State Government in this matter. It is pertinent to see in this regard that in the case of Naraindas v. State of M.P. there was consultation with the Chairman of the Education Board in regard to the question of prescription of the text books and the Supreme Court held that consultation with the Chairman of the Education Board can no the equated to the consultation with the "Education Board" and since the provision of prior consultation therein was held mandatory the action of the State was struck down in the said case.
Bombay High Court Cites 136 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vilas S/O Rangrao Mahalle vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 April, 2013

47. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Naraindas Indurkhya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (supra), any power or function, if intended to be made exercisable by the Chairman because of delegation through Regulations, the delegation can only be done through the mechanism of Regulations. In the light of arguments advanced before us, it is apparent that Respondent No. 10 - Board cannot be said to have evolved a mechanism to allocate business. In this situation, as there is no express provision permitting delegation, till Regulations are made in exercise of power under Section 39K of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:49:31 ::: wp201.12 59 1963 Act, the exercise of consultation may not be allowed to be attended to by any smaller body within the Board exclusively.
Bombay High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Dr. S.C. Garg And Anr. vs Kirori Mal College And Ors. on 30 October, 2006

28. The next question is whether the Governing Body acted beyond its jurisdiction in entrusting the task of drawing up the charges to the Chairman, on 7-1-2005. The petitioner characterizes this as an unlawful sub-delegation; the Governing body alone could have discharged that function, and not delegated it to the Chairman. The Supreme Court decision in Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P. has been cited in support.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Rajasthan State Warehousing ... vs Shree Shubham Logistics Limited on 4 December, 2018

(25 of 53) [SAW-1153/2018] It is further argued that the condition contained in Clause 5(5)(v) of the NIB which requires that the bidder either directly or through its 100% owned subsidiary must have licence from RSAMB to operate Private Sub e-Market in the State has rightly been struck down for the reason that 100% subsidiary of the Star Agri has been granted such licence only 6 days before the bid in question was floated which clearly proves that this condition has been is tailor made to benefit Star Agri in violation of Rule 80 of the RTPP Rules. Absence of licence to operate Private Sub e- Market cannot be said to be vital to scope of the work and the said licence, if required can be taken even during execution of the work awarded under the tender. Learned Senior Counsel argued that when the term of the contract awarded to Shri Shubham Logistics at 38 locations expires after two years, condition restricting participation of existing service provider, if eventually awarded contract at 33 locations in the present dispute, would have no meaning. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgments in Kharak Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 1963 SC 1295; M/s. Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Limited Vs. State of West Bengal & Another, (1975) 1 SCC 70; Patel Engineering Limited Vs. Union of India & Another, (2012) 11 SCC 257; Association of Registration Plates Vs. Union of India & Others, (2004) 5 SCC 364; Naraindas Indurkhya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, (1974) 4 SCC 788; Delhi High Court judgment in Sumitomo Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HLL Lifecare Ltd. & Ors. (WP (C) No. 4647/2012 decided on 24.09.2012).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramjit Singh Kardam vs Sanjeev Kumar on 8 April, 2020

50. When there are no statutory rules regarding allocation of business of the Commission or delegating its business to members or Committee, the 54 Commission could very well by its resolution devise its own mode of exercising such power or function, which preposition has been laid down by this Court by a Constitution Bench in Naraindas Indurkhya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (1974) 4 SCC 788 wherein in paragraph 17 following was stated:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 138 - A Bhushan - Full Document

The Tata Power Company Limited vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 28 May, 2020

In this view of the matter, reliance on decisions of Supreme Court reported as Naraindas Indurkhya v The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [(1974) 4 SCC 788], A.L. Kalra v Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd [(1984) 3 SCC 316], District Collector, Chittoor and Others v Chittoor District Groundnut Traders' Association, Chittoor and Others [(1989) SCC 58] and Babu Verghese and Others v Bar Council of Kerala and Others [(1999) 3 SCC 422 as also a decision of House of Lords reported as Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission and Another [(1968) UKHL 6], is misplaced.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri. Sandeep Pandurang Patil S/O. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Prin. ... on 16 December, 2020

38. Naraindas Indurkhya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.7 was a case where, the legislation in question provided that before prescribing text books, the Chairman of the Board was to be consulted. There was no compliance of such condition of consultation. The Court held that the notification issued by the State Government without 6 (1969) 3 SCC 56 7 (1974) 4 SCC 788 26/32 PIL(St (copy).).5619.2020.doc consultation with the Chairman of the Board was invalid, being in breach of the mandatory requirement of the proviso to Section 4(1) of 1973 Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Badal Chandra Bhunia vs The State Of West Bengal &Ors on 7 September, 2022

In Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 788 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 727 : AIR 1974 SC 1232 : (1974) 3 SCR 624] Bhagwati, J., speaking for the Court, reiterated the principles laid down by Mukherjea, C.J. in Ram Jawaya Kapur case [AIR 1955 SC 549 : (1955) 2 SCR 225 : 1955 SCJ 504] and held that the State Government could act in exercise of the executive power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution in relation to any matter with respect to which State legislature has power to make laws even if there was no legislation to support such executive 68 action. There is no denying the fact that the State legislature is competent to enact a law on the subject covered by Entry 33, List III, which reads:
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 26 - Cited by 5 - R Mantha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next