Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.06 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. vs Subhash Chandra Jaiswal on 29 November, 2016

The District Collector vs M/S.M.R.M. Ramaiya Enterprises Pvt. ... on 19 January, 2018

41. On the second question, it has been agitated by the appellants that the Learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the scope of the writ petitions and issued certain directions, which the court is not entitled to unless it is a public interest litigation. It was also contended that the directions issued are in the nature of legislative directions and the Courts do not have such powers to issue such directions. The Judgement of the Apex Court in 2017 5 SCC 163 (State of U.P. v. Subhash Chandra Jaiswal) in support of his contention that the High Court must not travel beyond the scope of the petition and should not issue directions which are in the sphere of policy.
Madras High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 2 - K Kalyanasundaram - Full Document

Gagandeep @ Goldy vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 August, 2022

8. This Court observes that the directions/guidelines issued to the learned Trial Courts below, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Subhash Chandra Jaiswal and Ors. (supra), flow from the factual matrix of the case, (Downloaded on 04/08/2022 at 08:20:20 PM) (9 of 9) [CRLMA-58/2022] wherein it was the claim of the applicant-petitioner who sought interim bail citing the medical ailment of his mother.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Vipul Jain vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 17 October, 2019

36. On the other hand Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, would submit that, although Section 126 and 128 of the 2016 Act confer power on the State Government to make Rules, however, as is evident from the said Sections also, no power is vested in the State Government to frame Rules to curb/ prevent the alleged corrupt practices during election nor has any such remedy been provided under the Act; the questions which arise for kind consideration are whether the High Court can issue directions to the respondents to make law/ scheme/ guidelines/policy in this regard?; and whether it can frame law/ scheme/ guidelines/policy itself; a Full Bench of this Court, in Dhananjay Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others20 has, after referring to numerous judgments of the Supreme Court, held that "it is not within the power of the Court to legislate law"; a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to the Legislature to incorporate a particular law or to Rule making Authority to make Rules in a particular manner or even to the Government to make a policy; in State of U.P. v. Subhash Chandra Jaiswal21, the Supreme Court held that the power to make policy is not the function of the Court, and the Court cannot direct the competent authority to make law be it plenary or subordinate, nor should it even direct that policy/guidelines should be made by the competent authority; the State Legislature has, in its wisdom, chosen to provide post-election remedies regarding action to be taken against persons involved in corrupt practices; as the Legislature itself has not chosen to make any provision for taking steps at the pre-election/ during election stage(s), no such law/ policy/ guidelines can be directed to be framed by the respondents; and the High Court does not possess powers akin to the power conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 144 - Cited by 0 - A K Verma - Full Document

Officers Arise From A Common Judgment Of ... vs Unknown on 21 December, 2020

3. The Counsel for the Provident Fund Organization would contend, inter alia, that the pension scheme is a contributory scheme and that the entire corpus of the scheme will be affected if the Judgment of the learned single Judge is implemented. They would submit that where the contributions under the pension scheme have been paid only with reference to the maximum pensionable salary, a member has no option to remit the contribution on actual salary at any point of time and claim that he/she W.A. No.811/2020 & conn. Cases. -3- should then be provided with the pension calculated with reference to actual salary and not with reference to the maximum pensionable salary provided for in the scheme. They submit that periodic contribution over a period of time is a sine qua non for providing a pension and by offering to now remit, in one go, the contributions payable with reference to actual salary, the employees cannot get a pension with reference to such actual salary. Periodic contributions are invested in the manner prescribed by the Central Government and the growth in the corpus on account of such investment alone is the basis for grant of pension is their submission. They place reliance on (i) Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323; for the proposition that the Court should not enlarge the scope of the legislation when the language of the provisions are plain and unambiguous; (ii) Jeewanlal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority; (1984) 4 SCC 356; for the proposition that while construing a social welfare legislation, the Court should no doubt adopt a beneficent rule of construction and if the section is capable of two constructions, the construction which fulfills the policy of the Act should be adopted however that when the language is plain and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to it whatever be the consequence; (iii) Regional Director, ESI Corpn. v. Ramanuja Match Industries; (1985) 1 SCC 218; where it was held: - "We do not W.A. No.811/2020 & conn. Cases. -4- doubt that beneficial legislations should have liberal construction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own there is no warrant for the Court to travel beyond the scheme and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered by the scheme"; (iv) State of U.P. v. Subhash Chandra Jaiswal; (2017) 5 SCC 163; for the proposition that a Court cannot take steps for framing a policy; (v) Maharashtra State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Provident Fund Commr.; (2009) 10 SCC 123; regarding the power of the PF authorities in the recovery of contributions; and (vi) Pawan Hans Limited and Others v. Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana and Others; 2020 SCC OnLine SC 43 where the Supreme Court has considered the working of the Provident Fund Scheme.
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Tanuja Tolia vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 24 July, 2020

He has also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Subhash Chand Jaiswal reported in (2017) 5 SCC, where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the High Court should not interfere in the domain of the Legislature and formulate a law. He then argues that grant of CCL to the employees other than regular employees would also result in huge financial burden on the Government.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - S Dhulia - Full Document

Subhash Jaiswal And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 September, 2024

3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings of case No. 178 of 2019 (State Vs. Subhash Jaiswal And Others), arising out of case crime no. 558 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Bhadohi, District Bhadohi (Sant Ravidas Nagar), pending in the court of Civil Judge/FTC (CAW), Bhadohi, Gyanpur, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R B Singh - Full Document
1