Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.45 seconds)
Manohar Lal (D) By Lrs vs Ugrasen (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 3 June, 2010 cites

Rakesh Ranjan Verma And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Bihar And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 April, 1992

In Rakesh Ranjan Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1348, the question arose as to whether the State Government, in exercise of its statutory powers could issue any direction to the Electricity Board in respect of appointment of its officers and employees. After examining the statutory provisions, the Court came to the conclusion that the State Government could only take the policy decisions as how the Board will carry out its functions 8 under the Act. So far as the directions issued in respect of appointment of its officers was concerned, it fell within the exclusive domain of the Board and the State Government had no competence to issue any such direction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 66 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

Bangalore Development Authority & ... vs R. Hanumaiah & Others on 3 October, 2005

In Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. Vs. R. Hanumaiah and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 508, this Court held that the power of the Government under Section 65 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 was not unrestricted and the directions which could be issued were those which were to carry out the objective of the Act and not those which are contrary to the Act and further held that the directions issued by the Chief Minister to release the lands were destructive of the purposes of the Act and the purposes for which the BDA was created.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 126 - Full Document

Bangalore Medical Trust vs B.S. Muddappa And Ors on 19 July, 1991

In Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa & Ors. AIR 1991 SC 1902, this Court considered the provisions of a similar Act, namely, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 containing a 9 similar provision and held that Government was competent only to give such directions to the authority as were in its opinion necessary or expedient and for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The Government could not have issued any other direction for the reason that Government had not been conferred upon unfettered powers in this regard. The object of the direction must be only to carry out the object of the Act and only such directions as were reasonably necessary or expedient for carrying out the object of the enactment were contemplated under the Act. Any other direction not covered by such powers was illegal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 457 - T K Thommen - Full Document
1   2 3 Next