Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.38 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Purtabpore Co. Ltd vs Cane Commissioner Of Bihar & Ors on 21 November, 1968
24. Though reliance is placed upon the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v Cane
Commissioner of Bihar & others [(1969) 1 SCC 308], and Union
of India & others v B. V. Gopinath & others [(2014) 1 SCC351],
we are of the view that they have no application to the facts of
OA-364/2013
19
this case. In Purtabpore Co. Ltd., the record clearly disclosed
that though the Cane Commissioner was vested with the power
whether or not to reserve villages in favour of a sugar factory,
in the context of purchase of sugar cane, he had to change his
opinion and follow the dictates of the Chief Minister. The
relevant provisions of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966,
conferred power upon the Cane Commissioner and not in the
Chief Minister. The fact that the decision of the Cane
Commissioner was affected and influenced by the dictate of the
Chief Minister is evident from the following part of the
judgment:
Union Of India & Ors vs B.V.Gopinath on 5 September, 2013
24. Though reliance is placed upon the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v Cane
Commissioner of Bihar & others [(1969) 1 SCC 308], and Union
of India & others v B. V. Gopinath & others [(2014) 1 SCC351],
we are of the view that they have no application to the facts of
OA-364/2013
19
this case. In Purtabpore Co. Ltd., the record clearly disclosed
that though the Cane Commissioner was vested with the power
whether or not to reserve villages in favour of a sugar factory,
in the context of purchase of sugar cane, he had to change his
opinion and follow the dictates of the Chief Minister. The
relevant provisions of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966,
conferred power upon the Cane Commissioner and not in the
Chief Minister. The fact that the decision of the Cane
Commissioner was affected and influenced by the dictate of the
Chief Minister is evident from the following part of the
judgment:
Smt. S. R. Venkataraman vs Union Of India & Anr on 2 November, 1978
25. The last contention is that there is malice in law, in
the entire process of issuance of the charge memorandum. At
the outset, it needs to be observed that the malice in law would
arise mostly when a power, which is vested for a particular
purpose, is used to achieve a different goal. The proposition of
law in this regard is explained in the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Smt. S. R. Venkataraman v Union of India [(1979) 2
SCC 491], relied upon by the applicant. In paras 5 and 6 of the
judgment, their Lordships summed up the purport thereof as
under:
Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999
26. We do not find any basis to interfere with the
charge memorandum dated 12.01.2007, or the order dated
22.02.2010. The matter has already been delayed almost by a
decade, and it cannot brook any further delay. It is in the
interest of the applicant also that the matter is given a quietus,
so that, if he emerges as innocent, his avenues of promotions
and upward movement are not adversely affected. We also
take note of the fact that the criminal proceedings are yet to
take a final shape. Even if they are said to be pending in any
manner, that would not come in the way of the disciplinary
proceedings, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
OA-364/2013
23
Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.
[(1999) 3 SCC 679], wherein it was held that if the criminal
proceedings are likely to take much time for conclusion, the
disciplinary proceedings can be continued.