Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 179 (5.30 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs R. Gandhi on 11 May, 2010

Revenue Bar Association vs Union Of India on 20 September, 2019

90. The crux of the argument of the Union of India that since the Appellate Tribunal under CGST Act, 2017 and the TNGST Act, 2017 is not a substitute to the High Court, the principles laid down in L.Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India, reported in 1997(3) SCC 261, Union of India Vs. R.Gandhi reported in 2010(11) SCC 1 and Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India, reported in 2014 (10) SCC 1, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, cannot be accepted in the light of the pronouncements of the Court quoted supra.
Madras High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 2 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Pratik Satayanarayan Gattani vs Union Of India on 2 September, 2025

Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of S. Manoharan v. Deputy Registrar & Ors., reported in 2015 Lab.IC 2580 in which the Court relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of R. Gandhi [Supra] held that the larger Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be formed by including two Administrative membersvice one Judicial member.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Smt. Ammini Karnan vs Intellectual Property Appellate Board on 27 March, 2013

The question raised in the public interest litigation was, when an appeal is decided by an Appellate Authority which is manned by a Judge of the Civil Court, an appeal from the decision of such authority cannot be heard by an executive authority, however high such executive authority may be. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in view of the principle laid down in R.Gandhi's case, Section 347D of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is unconstitutional. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - A Jagadeesan - Full Document

Anil Soni vs Union Of India & Anr. on 21 October, 2013

41. Our discussion in paragraphs 27 to 40 above analyze decisions on the subject of the power of Constitutional Court exercising power of judicial W.P.(C) 2983/2013 & 4797/2013 Page 28 of 34 review, but bring home the point that the legislature may constitute adjudicatory Fora's but the decisions thereof cannot be granted finality, in that, the same would always be subject to a judicial review, and secondly that the legislative competence of the legislature to constitute Tribunals on subjects that are intrinsically judicial functions and have been traditionally performed by the Courts cannot be exercised outside the judiciary, meaning thereby, and we quote para 64 of the opinion in R.Gandhi's case:
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - P Nandrajog - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next