State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974
In State of Mysore v. C.R.Sheshadri reported in (1974) 4 SCC 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)State Bank Of India & Ors vs Mohd. Mynuddin on 17 July, 1987
In State Bank of India v. Mohd. Mynuddin, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 486, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural ... vs Sahngoo Ram Arya And Anr. on 7 May, 2002
6. It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without being hounded by the Police or the CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is living as a law- abiding citizen. Therefore, it is clear that a decision to direct an inquiry by the CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes some such allegations. In the instant case, we see that the High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that there is a prima facie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded on the basis of 'ifs' and 'buts' and thought it appropriate that the inquiry should be made by the CBI. With respect, we think that this is not what is required by the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Common Cause, (1999) 6 SCC 1999."
State Of W.B. vs Managing Committee Of Sevagram ... on 8 September, 2014
In State of WB v. Committee for protection of Democratic Rights, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571, the Hon'ble Supreme has held as follows :
Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others on 7 December, 2007
38. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants cited Secretary, v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 521, Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, State of WB v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571, for the proposition that the Courts have wide powers conferred by Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution and this extra ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice.
Rameshwar Singh vs Hari Singh Gour Vishwa Vidyala & Ors on 8 January, 2013
24. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants cited the Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgment in Dr.Rameshwar v. H.G.Vishwa Vidya, reported in 1989 MP.L.J, 389, for the proposition that the proceedings of the Selection Committee cannot be termed as void and illegal in view of the Omnibus curative for an irregularity in its procedure not affecting the merits of the case.
1