Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.38 seconds)
The Secretary To Govt. Of Kerala . vs James Varghese . on 4 May, 2022 cites

S.S. Bhola & Ors vs B.D. Sardana & Ors on 11 July, 1997

44. Relying on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Ashok Kumar alias Golu v. Union of India and Others29, S.S. Bola and Others v. B.D. Sardana and Others30 and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another31, Smt. Padmanabhan submitted that the legislature does not have the competence to enact a legislation which sets aside the judgment or an award passed by a court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 92 - Full Document

Nagpur Improvement Trust And Another vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972

In this regard, he relies on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Nagpur Improvement Trust and Another v. Vithal Rao and Others38 and State of Kerala and Others v. T.M. Peter and Others39. He further submitted that Section 5 of the State Act itself provides sufficient guidelines regarding the cases in which the State would be empowered to file an appeal. As such, it cannot be said that the power given to the State to file an appeal is unguided.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 163 - S M Sikri - Full Document

P. Tulsi Das And Ors vs Government Of A.P. And Ors on 24 October, 2002

“14. On a careful consideration of the principles laid down in the above decisions in the light of the fact situation in these appeals we are of the view that they squarely apply on all fours to the cases on hand in favour of the appellants. The submissions on behalf of the respondent State that the rights derived and claimed by the appellants must be under any statutory enactment or rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and that in 52 (2003) 1 SCC 364 120 other respects there could not be any acquisition of rights validly, so as to disentitle the State to enact the law of the nature under challenge to set right serious anomalies which had crept in and deserved to be undone, does not merit our acceptance. It is by now well settled that in the absence of rules under Article 309 of the Constitution in respect of a particular area, aspect or subject, it is permissible for the State to make provisions in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162 which is coextensive with its legislative powers laying conditions of service and rights accrued to or acquired by a citizen would be as much rights acquired under law and protected to that extent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 55 - Full Document
1