Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Article 27 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 15 in The Protection Of Plant Varieties And Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others And Industrial ... on 23 July, 1996
38. The learned counsel for the interveners relied upon the decisions in
Tata Iron & Steel Co. (supra) and Federation of Railway Officers
Association (supra), in support of his contention that the opinion of the
W.P.(C) 4330, 4365, 4366, 6199 & 7853 of 2012 Page 19 of 20
Registrar being an expert in the matters should not be interfered with. In
my view, the said decisions are wholly inapplicable to the facts of the
present case, as they affirm the proposition that the Courts would not
normally interfere in the matters affecting policy, which are within the
discretion of the relevant authority. The present cases relate to
interpretation of a statute and not of any discretionary policy.
Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006
9. It was also submitted on behalf of the interveners that the
discretionary power exercised by an authority under the Act should not be
interfered with unless it is established that the exercise of discretion is
arbitrary and capricious and in violation of law. It was contended that
judicial review in technical matters was limited and warranted only if the
decision of the authority was held to be arbitrary or mala fide. The
interveners relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court in
support of this contention: Federation of Railway Officers Association
and Ors. v. Union of India: (2003) 4 SCC 289, Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
v. Union of India and Anr.: (1996) 9 SCC 709 and Akhil Bharat Goseva
Sangh v. State of A.P. & Others: (2006) 4 SCC 162.
St. Mark'S Educational Trust By Its ... vs S. Venkatesan, By Power Of Attorney G. ... on 22 June, 2006
In St. Aubyn v. Attorney-General: (1951) 2 All ER 473 Lord
Radcliffe had held as under:
Section 24 in The Protection Of Plant Varieties And Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Seeds Act, 1966 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Protection Of Plant Varieties And Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax ... vs Thomas Stephen & Co . Ltd. Quilon on 14 March, 1988
31. The decision of the Supreme Court in Thomas Stephen & Co (supra)
is of little assistance to the petitioners as the impugned order does not
proceed on the basis that the petitioners have sold or otherwise disposed of
the parent lines. Admittedly, the petitioners sell and dispose of hybrid
seeds.