Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)The Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003
Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973
Section 2 in The Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 617 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Amar Nath Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 11 July, 2014
23. Record in question reflects that the State Government has taken a policy decision vide the Government Order dated 12.11.1999 wherein various sugar mills have been closed down including the Rampur Unit of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Consequently, notices were issued under Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the employees of the sugar mill. This much is admitted situation that most of the employees had accepted the compensation but few of them have challenged the said action by way of writ petitions. The leading writ petitions being Writ Petition No.17847 of 2003 (Amar Nath & others Vs. State of U.P. & others),Writ Petition No.15125 of 2003 (Kamar Khan Vs. State of U.P. & others) and Writ Petition No.19043 of 2003 (Karuna Shankar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & others) were decided by a common judgment and order dated 12.12.2003, holding that in so far as the validity of retrenchment notices were concerned, it was held that remedy of high prerogative writ was not the appropriate forum for settling such controversial issue.
Bangalore Medical Trust vs B.S. Muddappa And Ors on 19 July, 1991
48. The authorities while considering the amendment in master plan have contended that such matters are expected to act reasonably and cautiously. They deal with larger public interest and, therefore, have a responsibility to act with greater degree of sensitivity and proper application of mind. If the Development Authority aids the violation of the statutory provisions, it will be a perversity in the discharge of statutory obligations on the part of the Development Authority. The public interest, as codified in the statutory regulations and the provisions of the Act, should control the conduct of the Development Authority and its decision making process, rather than popular public demand guiding the exercise of its discretion, that too, in a somewhat arbitrary manner. To illustrate the dimensions of exercise of such powers, we may refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Mudappa & Ors. [(1991) 4 SCC 54].
Gyanendra Kumar Sharma Son Of Rajesh ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, ... on 3 October, 2007
26. Record in question further revealed that 15 out of 23 petitioners had also proceeded to file Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52004 of 2015 (Rajesh Sharma & 96 others Vs. State of U.P. & others), wherein, the proposed amendment in Rampur Master Plan and the subsequent notice dated 07.04.2015 are under challenge, wherein no interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioners.