Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (2.84 seconds)
Documents citing Director General Ordnance Factories ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Director ... on 1 February, 1968

The Meenachilar Punarjani ... vs State Of Kerala on 20 July, 2021

11. The issue whether unincorporated association even if recognized by the Government according to the Central Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1959 can bring an action or in other words file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is answered in the case between Director General Ordnance Factories Employees' Association v. Union of India and Director General Ordnance Factories AIR 1969 Cal. 149. Learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court while rendering the judgment in the case (supra) in paragraph 6 to 9 answered the issue as under:
Kerala High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Kalpuzha Samrakshana Samithi vs State Of Kerala on 27 July, 2021

11. The issue whether unincorporated association even if recognized by the Government according to the Central Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1959 can bring an action or in other words file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is answered in the case between Director General Ordnance Factories Employees' Association v. Union of India and Director General Ordnance Factories AIR 1969 Cal. 149. Learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court while rendering the judgment in the case (supra) in paragraph 6 to 9 answered the issue as under:
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Forward Seamen'S Union Of India (Uoi) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 April, 2002

28. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Director General, Ordnance Factory Employees' Association v. Union of India & Director General, Ordnance Factory, . In that case, it has been held by the learned single Judge that when an association of Government employees has been recognised by the Government, it gives the Employees' Association a status in its relationship and dealings with the employer. But it has nothing to do with the representation of its members in a proceeding before a Court below.
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - A K Ganguly - Full Document

Shree Madhusudan Mills Ltd. vs Corporation Of Calcutta And Ors. on 4 December, 1975

No collective right of the Company as such has been affected by the hoardings. The Company also has no right to move an application under Article 226 on behalf of either of its employees or of its tenants who have independent rights of their own. In these circumstances it does not seem to us that the Company's application under Article 226 was at all maintainable. Reference in this connection may be made to , (Charanjit Lal v. Union of India) and , (Director-General of Ordnance Factories Employees' Association v. Union of India). The principle is that an association or collective body can move the Court under Article 226 only when its rights as a collective body as distinguished from the aggregate rights of its members are affected by the impugned Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

P.S.R. Krishna And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Rep., By Its ... on 27 September, 2006

In support of his submission that it is the writ petition filed by the Association before the Delhi High Court which was not maintainable, and not the writ petition filed by the petitioners herein, Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Director General Ordnance Factories Employees' Association (supra), wherein the Calcutta High Court observed:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 78 - Cited by 12 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

The Goa Judicial Officers' Association vs The State Of Goa And Ors. on 20 June, 1995

27. The Senior Counsel Mr. Kakodkar, who is appearing for the High Court, has contended that a writ petition on behalf of petitioner Association is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the petitioner is not the person aggrieved. In other words, he submits that the petitioner cannot identify itself with the grievances of its members. He has contended that even if the petitioner is a Corporate Body registered under the Societies Act, the petitioner cannot maintain a petition under Article 226 for and on behalf of its members. He has cited several decisions of different High Courts: Madhav Janardan v. Shrinivas Narayan Naik and another, A.I.R. 1962 Mysore 26, Director General Ordinance Factories Employees' Association v. Union of India and Director General Ordinance Factories, , Satyavart Sidhantalankar and others v. Arya Samaj, Bombay, A.I.R. 1946 Bom.
Bombay High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 9 - T K Das - Full Document

Jharkhand Ayurvedic & Unani Me vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 7 August, 2012

"27. The Senior Counsel Mr. Kakodkar, who is appearing for the High Court, has contended that a writ petition on behalf of petitioner Association is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the petitioner is not the person aggrieved. In other words, he submits that the petitioner cannot identify itself with the grievances of its members. He has contended that even if the petitioner is a Corporate Body registered under the Societies Act, the petitioner cannot maintain a petition under Article 226 for and on behalf of its members. He has cited several decisions of different High Courts: (Madhav Janardan v. Shrinivas Narayan Naik and another)14, A.I.R. 1962 Mysore 26, (Director General Ordinance Factories Employees' Association v. Union of India and Director General Ordinance Factories)15, A.I.R. 1969 Cal.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - D N Patel - Full Document
1   2 3 Next