Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)
Union Of India And Anr vs Subhash Chandra Agrawal on 20 December, 2023 cites

Secretary To Advocate General vs State Information Commission on 30 September, 2022

Lastly, to establish that work under such a relationship would be termed a fiduciary relationship, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in Secretary to Advocate General v State Information Commissioner and Ors, 2022 SCC Online Ker 4844, wherein it was observed that the relationship between an Advocate General of a State and the Government of that State is in the nature of a fiduciary relationship and the opinions tendered by the Advocate General would be exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - P V Kunhikrishnan - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr vs Lt Col P.K. Choudhary And Ors on 15 February, 2016

13. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that in the present case the Minister cannot be said to be a beneficiary of the Law Officer's opinion. He states that a public authority rendering an opinion to another public authority is for the benefit of the public at large. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent further relied on a judgement of this Hon'ble Court in Union of India v Col. V.K. Shaad, W.P. (C) 499/2012 and provided that in a relationship in an institutional setup, such as an inter-governmental one, a note provided by a personnel to another personnel cannot be said to give way to a fiduciary relationship. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, hence, submitted that since the government and the various ministries are part of an institutional setup, the information or opinions provided inter-ministry should also not establish a relationship in nature of a fiduciary. He also submitted that the Order dated 22.01.2018, passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) 8687/2011 does not provide that the opinion and/or advice given by the Ministry of Law and Justice to other Departments of Central Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:22.12.2023 19:03:13 W.P.(C) 4288/2012 Page 12 of 23 Government is exempt from disclosure ipso facto under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act in all circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 177 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 June, 2012

15. The Counsel further submitted that in the instant case, the information sought for related to the advice given by the then Solicitor General to the Minister of Telecommunications on the procedure for allotment of various 2G spectrums bands. He submitted that the decision thereafter by the Government of India in allocating the Spectrum Bands was based on the advice tendered by the Solicitor General. He further stated that the allocation of telecom licenses and 2G spectrums was cancelled in 2012 by the Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1 and new licenses were supposed to be issued to licensees, and thus, there existed an overwhelming public interest in making public the opinions Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:22.12.2023 19:03:13 W.P.(C) 4288/2012 Page 13 of 23 rendered by the Solicitor General and other Law Officers to the Minister of Telecommunications.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 248 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Reserve Bank Of India vs Jayantilal N. Mistry on 16 December, 2015

24. Flowing from the observations of the Supreme Court in CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, this Court notes that to establish a relationship of a fiduciary and beneficiary between two persons, whether it be voluntary, involuntary, formal or informal, it has to satisfy the test of four rules and duties as established in the Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525, which are the No Conflict Rule, No Profit Rule, Undivided Loyalty Rule and the Duty of Confidentiality. In the present case, to examine the relationship between the Solicitor General of India and the Union of India and other Union Ministries, it is important to peruse the rules for engagement of a Law Officer of the Union of India, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:22.12.2023 19:03:13 W.P.(C) 4288/2012 Page 19 of 23 namely the Law Officer (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987. Rule 5 of the same states as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 187 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Kokkanda B. Poondacha And Ors vs K.D. Ganapathi And Anr on 22 February, 2011

The Counsel for the Petitioner further places reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Kokkanda B. Poondacha v K.D. Gangapathi, (2011) 12 SCC 600 wherein the Apex Court provided that the nature of the relationship between a lawyer and a client is in the nature of a fiduciary relationship, and the relationship has a confidential character requiring a high degree of fidelity and personal trust.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 163 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Rajiv Ranjan on 6 April, 2021

6. He further relied on the Order dated 22.01.2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 8687/2011 titled as Union of India v. Rajiv Ranjan Verma Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:22.12.2023 19:03:13 W.P.(C) 4288/2012 Page 7 of 23 wherein the writ petition assailing the Order of the Hon'ble CIC in Rajiv Ranjan Verma (supra) was dismissed. The relevant excerpt is as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

P.K. Kunjukrishnan Nair vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 18 November, 1988

9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further placed reliance upon a decision of the Kerala High Court in Kunjukrishnan Nair v State of Kerala, 1998 SCC OnLine Ker 316, wherein it was held that the relationship between a Government Law Officer/ Pleader and the Government is that of a litigant and a lawyer, and hence, the advice and information given to the concerned Government Department is given in a fiduciary capacity by a Government Pleader.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1