Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.45 seconds)Trustees Of The Port Of Madras vs M/S. Aminchand Pyarelal & Ors on 9 September, 1975
Johnson, (1898) 2 QB 91, 98, 99 and
Stattery v. Naylor, (1988) 13 AC 446
have been cited with approval and
applied by this Court in Trustees of the
Port of Madras v. Aminchand Pyarelal
& Ors.,(1976) 1 SCR 721, 733."
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990
of
(See: Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P.
(1991) 1 SCC 212).
Reliance Natural Resources Ltd vs Reliance Industries Ltd on 7 May, 2010
rt Thus, what is essential is that the State
and its instrumentalities and their
functionaries while exercising their executive
power in matters of trade or business etc.
including making of contracts, should bear in
mind the public interest, public purpose and
public good. This is so, because every holder of
public office by virtue of which he acts on
behalf of the State, or its instrumentalities, is
ultimately accountable to the people in whom
sovereignty vests and as such, all powers
vested in the State are meant to be exercised
for public good and in public interest.
Therefore, the question of unfettered discretion
in an executive authority just does not arise.
The fetters on discretion are clear, transparent
and objective criteria or procedure which
promotes public interest, public purpose and
public good. A public authority is ordained,
therefore to act, reasonably and in good faith
and upon lawful and relevant grounds of
public interest. (Refer: Reliance Natural
Resources Ltd. vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.
(2010) 7 SCC 1). Bearing in mind the guiding
principles laid down in the Constitution of
India alongwith law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court from time to time, we proceed
to determine the writ petition."
S. G. Jaisinghani vs Union Of India And Ors.(With Connected ... on 22 February, 1967
Court in S.G.Jaisinghani vs. Union of India and
Others, AIR 1967 SC 1427, Satwant Singh Sawhney
vs. D.Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New
Delhi and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1836, Namit Gupta vs.
of
State of H.P. and Others, AIR 2014 HP 49, Pritam
Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2013)1
Him.L.R. 130 and Saroj Garg vs. State of H.P. & Ors.,
rt
AIR 2011 HP 94.
Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport ... on 10 April, 1967
Court in S.G.Jaisinghani vs. Union of India and
Others, AIR 1967 SC 1427, Satwant Singh Sawhney
vs. D.Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New
Delhi and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1836, Namit Gupta vs.
of
State of H.P. and Others, AIR 2014 HP 49, Pritam
Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2013)1
Him.L.R. 130 and Saroj Garg vs. State of H.P. & Ors.,
rt
AIR 2011 HP 94.
Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984
In
rt this regard reliance is placed upon
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education and Another vs. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others and Alpana
V.Mehta vs. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
Education and Another, (1984)4 SCC 27, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
Parisons Agrotech (P) Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 2015
In Parisons Agrotech Private Limited and
of
Another vs. Union of India and Others, (2015)9 SCC
657, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
Union Of India & Ors vs Dinesh Engineering Corpn. & Anr on 18 September, 2001
In Union of India v. Dinesh Engg.
Corpn., (2001)8 SCC 491, this Court
delineated the aforesaid principle of judicial
.
State Of Orissa & Ors vs Gopinath Dash & Ors on 9 December, 2005
17. The aforesaid doctrine of separation of
power and limited scope of judicial review in
policy matters is reiterated in State of Orissa
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:49:04 :::HCHP
32
v. Gopinath Dash, (2005) 13 SCC 495 : (SCC
p.497, paras 5-7)
"5. While exercising the power of judicial
.