Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 760 (2.64 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs P. Krishnamurthy & Ors on 24 March, 2006

Dr. Abhinav Kumar & Ors. vs Union Of India, Through Secretary, ... on 29 July, 2022

47. The aforesaid case arose out of a judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court striking down the notification dated 21.05.2012, by way of which the Dental Council amended the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or High Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006, on the ground of being inconsistent with the Dentists Act, 1948, and being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, relying upon Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited and Others (supra) and State of T.N. and Another (supra), held that the amended Regulations could not be said to be manifestly arbitrary and that it had a direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Court also held that it was impermissible for the W.P.(C) 4852/2020 Page 29 of 41 Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:29.07.2022 11:37:47 High Court to enter into an area of experts and hold that the unamended provisions ought to be preferred over the amended provisions.
Delhi High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Cauvery Neervala Aathara vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 3 August, 2012

- Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, Rule 38-A and G.O.Ms.No.95 Industries (MMC1) Department dated 01.10.2003, all sand quarries in the State are operated by the Public Works Department and therefore, EIA Notification, 2006 is not applicable and environmental clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forests/State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) is not required. The learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Government Pleader would further contend that licence for sand quarry is granted by the District Collectors to the Public Works Department only after studying the availability of sand, environmental aspects and licenses are granted by imposing strict conditions that sand quarrying to be done without affecting the riverbeds and also imposing conditions regarding the depth of sand to be quarried. It was further submitted that the validity of G.O.Ms.No.95 Industries (MMC1) Department, dated 01.10.2003 was upheld by the Madras High Court [(2004) 4 MLJ 418 (State of Tamil Nadu v. P.Krishnamurthy)] which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2006) 4 SCC 517 (State of T.N. and another v. P.Krishnamurthy and others).
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Tamil Nadu vs P.Sivalingam on 6 April, 2009

6. A reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu & another v. P.Krishnamurthy & Others, referred supra, especially paragraph 36, makes it clear that the parties before the Supreme Court, who were having subsisting lease as on 2.10.2003, will be entitled to carry on quarry operations for a period of six months or for the actual unexpired period of lease, whichever is less. As submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader, it may not be correct to hold, by technically construing the wordings of the judgment, that the judgment is not a judgment in rem, but the fact remains that persons like the respondent herein, who have been similarly situated and who were before the Supreme Court, were given such benefits.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shriram Trimbak Joshi And Others vs State Of Maha. Thr Secretary Urban ... on 18 October, 2016

60. However, in the facts of the present case, in absence of a provision which is analogous to provisions of Section 11 (4) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and until the Parliament enacts a legislation as advised by Their Lordships of the Apex Court, we will have to examine the present case as per the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court consisting of seven Hon'ble Judges in the case of M/s. Prag Ice and Oil Mills and another (cited supra), in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu vs. P.Krishnamurthy and Others cited supra), Union of India and another .vs. Cynamide India Ltd. and another (cited supra) and Pune Municipal Corporation and another (cited supra) as approved by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra). Hereinabove, we have in extenso considered the aforesaid Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We are of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to bring the case within any of the parameters on which the challenge to legislative functions of the delegatee would be permissible.
Bombay High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Narendra Jagannath Trivedi And Others vs State Of Maha. Thr Secretary, Urban ... on 18 October, 2016

60. However, in the facts of the present case, in absence of a provision which is analogous to provisions of Section 11 (4) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and until the Parliament enacts a legislation as advised by Their Lordships of the Apex Court, we will have to examine the present case as per the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court consisting of seven Hon'ble Judges in the case of M/s. Prag Ice and Oil Mills and another (cited supra), in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu vs. P.Krishnamurthy and Others cited supra), Union of India and another .vs. Cynamide India Ltd. and another (cited supra) and Pune Municipal Corporation and another (cited supra) as approved by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra). Hereinabove, we have in extenso considered the aforesaid Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We are of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to bring the case within any of the parameters on which the challenge to legislative functions of the delegatee would be permissible.
Bombay High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Ataur Rahman Khan S/O Zulfiquar Khan And ... vs The State Of Maha., Through Principal ... on 18 October, 2016

60. However, in the facts of the present case, in absence of a provision which is analogous to provisions of Section 11 (4) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and until the Parliament enacts a legislation as advised by Their Lordships of the Apex Court, we will have to examine the present case as per the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court consisting of seven Hon'ble Judges in the case of M/s. Prag Ice and Oil Mills and another (cited supra), in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu vs. P.Krishnamurthy and Others cited supra), Union of India and another .vs. Cynamide India Ltd. and another (cited supra) and Pune Municipal Corporation and another (cited supra) as approved by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra). Hereinabove, we have in extenso considered the aforesaid Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We are of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to bring the case within any of the parameters on which the challenge to legislative functions of the delegatee would be permissible.
Bombay High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Ramdas S/O Marotrao Kathle And Others vs The State Of Maha. Thr. The Secretary, ... on 18 October, 2016

60. However, in the facts of the present case, in absence of a provision which is analogous to provisions of Section 11 (4) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and until the Parliament enacts a legislation as advised by Their Lordships of the Apex Court, we will have to examine the present case as per the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court consisting of seven Hon'ble Judges in the case of M/s. Prag Ice and Oil Mills and another (cited supra), in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu vs. P.Krishnamurthy and Others cited supra), Union of India and another .vs. Cynamide India Ltd. and another (cited supra) and Pune Municipal Corporation and another (cited supra) as approved by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra). Hereinabove, we have in extenso considered the aforesaid Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We are of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to bring the case within any of the parameters on which the challenge to legislative functions of the delegatee would be permissible.
Bombay High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Theatre Amirtham A/C on 24 March, 2010

36. It is not the case of Respondents that Rule 92(1)(v) is inconsistent with any specific provision of Tamilnadu Cinematograph Act; but the case of Respondent is that it is inconsistent and alien to the object and scheme of the parent Act. As held by the Supreme Court in (2006) 4 SCC 517 (State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy), when where the contention is inconsistency with the object and scheme of the parent Act and not with reference to any specific provision of the enabling Act, the Court should proceed with caution before declaring invalidity. We are of the view that while examining the vires of the subordinate legislation, Rule 92(1)(v) the learned singe Judge did not appear to have proceeded with a cautious approach before declaring it invalid.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R Banumathi - Full Document

West Bengal M. R. Dealers' Association & ... vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 26 October, 2017

In "Cellular Operators Association of India V. TRAI" (supra) the parameters of judicial review of subordinate legislation are laid down in paragraph 34 by quoting paragraph 15 of "State of Tamil Nadu V. P. Krishnamurthy" (supra) which has already been quoted above. It is held by the Supreme Court in paragraph 41 of the judgment that the Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations, 2015 is ultra vires the Act, as the impugned regulation does not carry out the purpose of the Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - R K Bag - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next