Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)
Vineet Narain & Others vs Union Of India & Another on 18 December, 1997 cites

K. Veeraswami vs Union Of India And Others on 25 July, 1991

The position of Judges of High Courts and Supreme Court, who are constitutional functionaries, is distinct, and the independence of judiciary, keeping it free from any extraneous influence, including that from executive, is the rationale of the decision in K. Veeraswami (supra). In strict terms the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1946 could not be applied to the superior Judges and, therefore, while bringing those Judges within the purview of the Act yet maintaining the independence of judiciary, this guideline was issued as a direction but the Court. The feature of independence of judiciary has no application to the officers covered by the single directive, The need for independence of judiciary from the directive influence does not arise in the case of officers belonging to the executive.
Supreme Court of India Cites 91 - Cited by 259 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Sushil Kumar Modi & Ors on 24 January, 1997

It is useful to remember in this context what this Court has no several occasions in the past said about the nature of duty and functions of Policy officers in the investigation of an offence. It is sufficient to refer to one of them, namely, Union of India and Others vs. Sushil Kumar Modi and Others, 1997 (4) SCC 770, (Bihar Fodder Scam case), wherein it was said, as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 93 - Full Document

Vineet Narain & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 January, 1996

"4. At the outset, we would indicate that the nature of proceedings before the High Court is somewhat similar to those pending in this Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1996 (2) SCC 199 and Anukul Chandara Pradhan v. Union of India, 1996 (6) SCC 354 and, therefore, the High Court is required to proceed with the matter in a similar manner. It has to be borne in mind that the purpose of these proceedings in essentially to ensure performance of the statutory duty by the CBI and the other government agencies in accordance with law for the proper implementation of the rule of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 61 - J S Verma - Full Document

Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 October, 1996

"4. At the outset, we would indicate that the nature of proceedings before the High Court is somewhat similar to those pending in this Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1996 (2) SCC 199 and Anukul Chandara Pradhan v. Union of India, 1996 (6) SCC 354 and, therefore, the High Court is required to proceed with the matter in a similar manner. It has to be borne in mind that the purpose of these proceedings in essentially to ensure performance of the statutory duty by the CBI and the other government agencies in accordance with law for the proper implementation of the rule of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Abhinandan Jha & Ors vs Dinesh Mishra(With Connected Appeal) on 17 April, 1967

5. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the formation of the opinion as to whether or not here is a case to place the accused for trial is that of the police officer making the investigation and the final step in the investigation is to be taken only by the police and by no other authority, see Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, 1967 (3)SCR 668.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 586 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997

As pointed out in Vishakha (supra), it is the duty of the executive to fill the vacuum by executive orders because its field is coterminous with that of the legislature, and where there is inaction even by the executive, for whatever reason, the judiciary must step in, in exercise of its constitutional obligations under the aforesaid provisions to provide a solution till such time as the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 569 - Full Document
1   2 Next