Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.47 seconds)
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs M/S Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd.& on 27 August, 2010 cites

(Smt.) Smita Pandurang Dalvi, Of Bombay ... vs Ratnakar Dattatraya Patade, Of Bombay, ... on 26 February, 2002

Ct. held that in view of the undisputed practice that a licence once granted by the Chief Commr. Was almost automatically renewed by the Collector from year to year, it could not be said that the writ application and the appeal had become infructuous on the expiry of the period of the licence in dispute, and it was only proper that the appeal should be heard on its merits. Again in Sudhir Kumar v S.T.A. 96 where the validity of a temporary permit was challenged, the court went into the question even though on the day when the petition was heard the permit had expired and no mandamus could be granted. But the court held that the temporary permit granted in the case was not legal. It is submitted that the course adopted by the Sup. Ct. and the High Court was correct. However, it has been held that a petition challenging an order of reversion is not futile because the petitioner retired before the petition was heard, for if the reversion order was quashed, he would be entitled to relief in respect of arrears of pay and pension as though he had never been reverted." 97
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1259 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Khudi Prosad Bhakat vs The State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 9 August, 1950

"24. .... "The giving of reasons", as Lord Denning put it in Breen vs. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All E R 1148 "is one of the fundamentals of good administration" and, to recall the words of this Court in Khudi Ram vs. State of West Bengal (1975) 2 SCR 832 at p. 845 :(AIR 1975 SC 550 at p. 558) in a Government of laws "there is nothing like unfettered discretion immune from judicial 18 reviewability." The executive, no less than the judiciary, is under a general duty to act fairly. Indeed, fairness founded on reason is the essence of the guarantee epitomized in Arts. 14 and 16(1)."
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

U.P.State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Mohd. Ismail And Ors on 11 April, 1991

3. Learned counsel for the appellants raises a grievance that the directions amount to interference with the discretion vested in the Cane Commissioner and impermissible in law. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Ismail [AIR 1991 SC 1099] (Para 11). He also submits that the learned writ court has erred in issuing the direction that allocation of tradtional cane-growing areas would be for five years, and non-traditional areas would be for three years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 102 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1   2 3 Next