Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13491 (7.40 seconds)

Indian Hotel And Restaurant ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Home ... on 17 January, 2019

But after the decision in Maneka Gandhi [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] which marks a watershed in the development of constitutional law in our country, this Court, for the first time, took the view that Article 21 affords protection not only against the executive action but also against the legislation which deprives a person of his life and personal liberty unless the law for deprivation is reasonable, just and fair. And it was held that the concept of reasonableness runs like a golden thread through the entire fabric of the Constitution and it is not enough for the law to provide some semblance of a procedure. The procedure for depriving a person of his life and personal liberty must be eminently just, reasonable and fair and if challenged before the court it is for the court to determine whether such procedure is reasonable, just and fair and if the court finds that it is not so, the court will strike down the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 93 - Cited by 17 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 August, 2017

29) In my considered view, the answer to the questions can be found in the law laid down by this Court in the cases beginning from Rustom Cavasjee Cooper (supra) followed by Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 248, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India & Anr., (1997) 1 SCC 301, Gobind’s case (supra), Mr. "X" vs. Hospital ‘Z’ (1998) 8 SCC 296, District Registrar & Collector, Hyderabad & Anr. vs. Canara Bank & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 496 and lastly in Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2013) 16 SCC 82.
Supreme Court of India Cites 294 - Cited by 384 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Dr. Shrikant Bhasi vs Bureau O Immigration, Ministry Of Home ... on 23 April, 2024

Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] ... In Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684: 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] which upheld the constitutional Page 147 of 289 23rd April 2024 Viraj Chetan Shah v Union Of India & Anr & Connected Matters WP719-2020++-F4-CL.DOCX validity of the death penalty, Sarkaria J., speaking for the majority, said that if Article 21 is understood in accordance with the interpretation put upon it in Maneka Gandhi [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248], it will read to say that:
Bombay High Court Cites 168 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

Karan Baheti And Anr vs Union Of India And 2 Ors on 23 April, 2024

Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] ... In Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684: 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] which upheld the constitutional Page 147 of 289 23rd April 2024 Viraj Chetan Shah v Union Of India & Anr & Connected Matters WP719-2020++-F4-CL.DOCX validity of the death penalty, Sarkaria J., speaking for the majority, said that if Article 21 is understood in accordance with the interpretation put upon it in Maneka Gandhi [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248], it will read to say that:
Bombay High Court Cites 168 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

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

75. Clearly, therefore, the three-Judge Bench in McDowell case [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] has not noticed Maneka Gandhi [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] cited in Mohd. Arif [Mohd. Arif v. Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 408] to show that the wheel has turned full circle and substantive due process is part of Article 21 as it is to be read with Articles 14 and 19.
Bombay High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 8 - A Oka - Full Document

The Caritas India vs Union Of India on 3 July, 2019

75. Clearly, therefore, the three-Judge Bench in McDowell case [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] has not noticed Maneka Gandhi [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] cited in Mohd. Arif [Mohd. Arif v. Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 408] to show that the wheel has turned full circle and substantive due process is part of Article 21 as it is to be read with Articles 14 and 19.
Madras High Court Cites 203 - Cited by 6 - S Prasad - Full Document

Ajit Kamath vs Bank Of Baroda And 2 Ors on 23 April, 2024

Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] ... In Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684: 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] which upheld the constitutional Page 147 of 289 23rd April 2024 Viraj Chetan Shah v Union Of India & Anr & Connected Matters WP719-2020++-F4-CL.DOCX validity of the death penalty, Sarkaria J., speaking for the majority, said that if Article 21 is understood in accordance with the interpretation put upon it in Maneka Gandhi [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248], it will read to say that:
Bombay High Court Cites 168 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

Anil M. Howale vs Union Of India Thr. Its Ministry Of Home ... on 23 April, 2024

Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] ... In Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684: 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] which upheld the constitutional Page 147 of 289 23rd April 2024 Viraj Chetan Shah v Union Of India & Anr & Connected Matters WP719-2020++-F4-CL.DOCX validity of the death penalty, Sarkaria J., speaking for the majority, said that if Article 21 is understood in accordance with the interpretation put upon it in Maneka Gandhi [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248], it will read to say that:
Bombay High Court Cites 168 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

Janhit Manch vs State Of Maharashtra Through Principal ... on 2 November, 2018

75. Clearly, therefore, the three-Judge Bench in McDowell case [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] has not noticed Maneka Gandhi [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] cited in Mohd. Arif [Mohd. Arif v. Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 408] to show that the wheel has turned full circle and substantive due process is part of Article 21 as it is to be read with Articles 14 and 19.
Bombay High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Harbhajan Singh And Anr vs Bureau Of Immigration And 2 Ors on 23 April, 2024

Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] ... In Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684: 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] which upheld the constitutional Page 147 of 289 23rd April 2024 Viraj Chetan Shah v Union Of India & Anr & Connected Matters WP719-2020++-F4-CL.DOCX validity of the death penalty, Sarkaria J., speaking for the majority, said that if Article 21 is understood in accordance with the interpretation put upon it in Maneka Gandhi [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248], it will read to say that:
Bombay High Court Cites 168 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next