Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.38 seconds)
All Saints Senior Secondary School vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 July, 2023 cites

Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 March, 1966

"27. In fact, the impugned order dated 19.8.98 cannot be said to be an amendment even by stretch of imagination. It was meant merely for information to the concerned authorities about the judgments of this Court for their enforcement/implementation. Issuing such a circular/order directing the authorities to implement the order of court of law cannot be said to be an amendment of the Statutory Rules. Therefore, that judgment is with all due respects to my esteemed brother Sharma, J., is of no assistance to the petitioners. The impugned order dated 19.8.98 is an order passed consequent to the judgments and orders of this Court. I am at complete loss to understand as how these petitions can be entertained for the reason that a judicial order can be challenged only in appeal and it can never be amenable to judicial review in writ jurisdiction. (Vide Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (7). Entertaining these petitions would amount to sitting in appeal against the earlier judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, and such an action, undoubtedly, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law."
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 552 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Kerala State Electricity Board vs Thomas Joseph Alias Thomas M. J. on 16 December, 2022

there may be simple excess of power over what is conferred by the parent Act; delegated (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:24:07 PM) (21 of 56) [CW-8567/2023] legislation may be inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act or statute law or the general law; there may be non-compliance with the procedural requirement as laid down in the parent Act. It is the function of the courts to keep all authorities within the confines of the law by supplying the doctrine of ultra vires."
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 16 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978

reasonableness, it may be stated, that though subjectwise, Article 21-A deals with access to education as against right to establish and administer educational institution in Article 19(1)(g), it is now not open to anyone to contend that the law relating to right to access to education within Article 21-A does not have to meet the requirement of Article 14 or Article 19 for its reasonableness. (See Khudiram Dasv.State of W.B.[(1975) 2 SCC 81 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 435 : (1975) 2 SCR 832] ) After the judgment of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248] , the principle of reasonableness is applicable to Article 14 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 126 - Cited by 1969 - M H Beg - Full Document

Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 September, 2010

As held by this Court in Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of T.N. [(2010) 10 SCC 96] , Article 21 (right to life) remains the core of the Constitution around which Article 14, Article 19 and others revolve. In other words, all other fundamental rights in Part III would be dependent upon right to life in Article 21 as interpreted by this Court to include right to live with dignity, right to education, etc. At the end of the day, whether one adopts the pith and substance test or the nature and character of the legislation test or the effect test, one finds that all these tests have evolved as rules of interpretation only as a matter of reasonableness. They help us to correlate Article 21 with Article 14, Article 19 and, so on.
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 25 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

P.A. Inamdar & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 August, 2005

31. Applying the above principle of reasonableness, though the right to access to education falls as a subject-matter under Article 21-A and though to implement the said article, Parliament has enacted the 2009 Act, one has to judge the validity of the said Act in the light of the principle of reasonableness in Article 19(6), particularly, when in T.M.A. Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481] and in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC 537] , it has been held that right to establish and administer an educational institution falls under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Thus, the question which arises for determination is -- whether Section 12(1)(c) of the 2009 Act is a reasonable restriction on (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 06:24:07 PM) (36 of 56) [CW-8567/2023] the non-minority's right to establish and administer an unaided educational institution under Article 19(6)?
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 737 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 3 Next