Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 132 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Chander Mohan Khanna vs National Council Of Educational ... on 17 September, 1991

Kiran Jain vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 10 October, 2023

It has proceeded on the basis that in the face of Pradeep Kumar Biswas [Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 633] decision, the decision in Chander Mohan Khanna [Chander Mohan Khanna v. National Council of Educational Research and Training, (1991) 4 SCC 578 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 109 : (1992) 19 ATC 71] must be taken to be overruled and no further discussion of the question is necessary.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Y.L. Ahuja vs Institute Of Applied Manpower And ... on 18 September, 1995

(29) In Chander Mohan Khanna Vs. National Council for Educational Research and Training after referring to the earlier case law and after referring to the objects of the test that one of the sources of the funds of the Society was Governmental grant. Its functions were not wholly related to the Governments functions and is largely an Autonomous Body. This, Court's judgment under appeal was upheld and it was held that NCERT was not the instrumentality of the Government under Article 12 of the Constitution. Other cases relied upon have also followed the principles and tests already noticed.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - J B Goel - Full Document

Kalyani Spinning Mills Ltd. And Others vs Smt. Sudha Sashikant Shroff And Another on 8 August, 1994

In Chander Mohan Khanna v. The National Council of Eductional Research and Training (ibid) it was held that the National Council of Educational Research and Training had activities comprising undertaking of programmes and activities connected with coordination of research services and training and it was not wholly related to governmental functions. The Government control was confined only to proper utilisation of Government grant which is one of the sources of income. It was ultimately found that this organisation is not "State". Thus we find that the said case was quite distinguishable from the facts of the present one.
Calcutta High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dr. Amar Chandra Saha vs The President, Calcutta Society For ... on 21 July, 1992

The Supreme Court in (Chander Mohan Khanna v. The National Council of Educational Research & Training), has, inter alia, observed that Article 12 of the Constitution should not be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression "State". A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. The Supreme Court has further observed that it must not be lost sight of that in the modern concept of welfare State, independent institution, corporation and agency are generally subject to State control. The State control does not render such bodies as "State" under Article 12. The State control, however vast and pervasive, is not determinative. The Supreme Court also observed that the financial contribution by the State is also not conclusive. The combination of State aid coupled with an unusual degree of control over the management and policies of the body, and rendering of an important public service being the obligatory functions of the State may largely point out that the body is "State". If the Government operates behind a corporate veil, carrying out governmental activity and governmental functions of vital public importance, according to the Supreme Court, there may be little difficulty in identifying the body as "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.K. Sodhi And Ors. vs Lt. Governor And Ors. on 18 May, 2002

"Perhaps this rather over-enthusiastic application of the broad limits set by Ajay Hasia may have persuaded this Court to curb the tendency in Chander in Chander Mohan Khanna v. National Council of Educational Research and Training and Ors. . The Court referred to the tests formulated in Sukhdev Singh, Ramana, Ajay Hasia, and Som Prakash Rekhi but striking a note of caution said that "these are merely indicative indicia and are by no means conclusive or clinching in any case". In that case, the question arose whether the National Council of Educational Research (NCERT) was a 'State' as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution. The NCERT is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. After considering the provisions of its Memorandum of Association as well as the rules of NCERT, this Court came to the conclusion that since NCERT was largely an autonomous body and the activities of the NCERT were not wholly related to governmental functions and that the Government control was confined only to the proper utilization of the grant and since its funding was not entirely from Government resources, the case did not satisfy the requirements of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution."
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Shiny George Ambat vs Union Of India on 12 June, 2023

23.The decision in Chander Mohan Khanna v. National Educational Research & Training & Ors [1991 (4) SCC 578] is relied on to contend that when the question whether a writ is maintainable against a particular body is being considered, each case should be handled on its own facts. Where the financial assistance from the State is so much as to meet almost the entire expenditure of the institution or the share capital of the corporation is completely held by the Government, it would afford some indication of the body being impregnated with Government character. Article 12 should not be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression "State". It is stated that the combination of State aid coupled with an unusual degree of control over the management and policies of the body and rendering of an important public service being the obligatory functions of the State may largely point out that the body is "State".
Kerala High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - A Sivaraman - Full Document

Gowripaga Albert Lael vs Joseph D Souza on 23 April, 2025

33. The respondent No.8/Good Shepherd Community Society is registered under The Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 whose objects include imparting spiritual teachings, setting up primary health and literary centers. Such a society cannot fall within the definition of "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A writ petition is also not maintainable against a Co-operative Society: Chander Mohan Khanna Vs. National Council of Educational((1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 578). The Supreme Court in this case agreed with the contention that NCERT is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and was not a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Telangana High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next