Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.72 seconds)
Prof. S. K. Bhalla vs State Of J&K And Others on 9 October, 2020 cites

Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Dr. Manmohan Singh And Anr on 31 January, 2012

49. Mr. S. S. Ahmed submits that the respondents had no jurisdiction in law to close the cases which were required to be referred to DoPT. Mr. S. S. Ahmed on earlier occasion had submitted that this was done in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported at (2012) 3 SCC 64, Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and Station House Officer CBI/ACB/Banglore vs. B. A. Srinivasan and another, Criminal Appeal No.1837 of 2019 @ SLP (crl.) No.6106 of 2019, decided on 5th December 2019.
Supreme Court of India Cites 63 - Cited by 335 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs U.O.I on 23 February, 2018

Now, the expression „let-out on hire‟ which finds reference in sub-Section (1) of Section 141 is missing in sub-Section (2), but that in our opinion is irrelevant for the reason a statutory authority and especially a Municipal Statutory Authority would be obliged on the principle of a Trust to obtain the best price while creating any interest in its property in favour of a third party. It is the inherent right of every proprietor to secure maximum consideration for his property in all transactions, apart from transactions where the law limits consideration that can be charged by the proprietor, for any public purpose or in public interest. In the case of governmental bodies like the NDMC, the implicit right of a proprietor to maximize consideration for its property is also a duty since these bodies own and transact property in a fiduciary capacity for the general public. A similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2012) 3 SCC 1 Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of equality enjoins that the public is adequately compensated for the transfer of natural Page 14 of 64 IA No. 48/2014 & CM Nos. 4036, 4065 of 2020 in PIL No.19/2011 resources and/or their products to the private domain. Thus, in exercising its right/discharging its duty to secure maximum consideration for grant of licence in relation to property bearing No. 1, Man Singh Road, New Delhi, NDMC is within its power to ensure that such measures are adopted by it which fetch the maximum revenue. As a consequence of NDMC's proprietary right and fiduciary duty to secure maximum consideration for public property, Section 141(2) of the NDMC Act, 1994 must be interpreted to include within its ambit all transactions involving immoveable property and the grant of licences cannot be dehors Section 141(2) of the NDMC Act, 1994. A harmonious construction of Section 141(1) and 141(2) of the NDMC Act, 1994 supports the view that it is incumbent on the NDMC to sell, lease, let out or otherwise transfer any immoveable property at the value at which such immovable property could be sold, leased, let out or otherwise be transferred in normal and fair competition. The omission of the word „let out‟ in Section 141(2) of the NDMC Act, 1994 is clearly on account of an error in legislative drafting. Section 141(1) lists the modes and the manner in which the immoveable property belonging to the NDMC may be disposed off while Section 141(2) of the NDMC Act, 1994 provides the necessary condition of securing adequate compensation, which represents the fiduciary duty of the NDMC to the general public, to be fulfilled while disposing off the property as per Section 141(1) of the NDMC Act, 1994."
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 147 - A K Goel - Full Document

Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 January, 2010

In the judgment of the Supreme Court reported at (2010) 2 SCC 200 Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and others, investigation was conducted into the killing of a person who was alleged to have been killed by Gujarat Police. The investigation stood conducted by the Gujarat Police and even a charge sheet had been submitted. However, the writ petitioner apprehended that the investigation was not fair and impartial because high officials of the Gujarat Police were involved in the case. The writ petition praying for transfer of the case to CBI was filed at this stage. The Supreme Court, firstly, considered the issue as to whether investigation could be transferred to CBI after filing of the charge sheet and trial was going on and, secondly, whether facts and circumstances of the case warranted transfer of the case. On a consideration of the matter, the Supreme Court while considering several precedences, held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 175 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 13 December, 1996

In Gudalure M.J.Cherian (supra), in that case also the charge sheet was submitted but inspite of that, in view of the peculiar facts of that case, the investigation was transferred from the file of the Sessions Judge, Moradabad to Sessions Judge, Delhi. Inspite of such fact that the charge sheet was filed in that case, this Court directed the CBI to hold further investigation inspite of the offences committed. In this case at Page 400 this court observed: (para 7) "7.........................The investigation having been completed by the police and the charge sheet submitted to the court, it is not for this court ordinarily to reopen the investigation specially by entrusting the same to a specialized agency like CBI. We are also conscious that of late the demand for CBI investigation even in police cases is on the increase. Nevertheless - in a given situation, to do justice between the parties and to instill confidence in the public mind - it may become necessary to ask the CBI to investigate a crime. It only shows the efficiency and the independence of the agency."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 356 - K Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next