Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.42 seconds)
Joginder Singh Mann And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 16 November, 2015 cites

P.K. Unni vs Nirmala Industries & Ors on 20 February, 1990

Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature the court could not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. Courts shall decide what the law is and not what it should be. The court of course adopts a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature but could not legislate itself. But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is subversive of the constitutional harmony and comity of instrumentalities. Vide P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries (1990) 2 SCC 378, Mangilal v. Suganchand Rathi AIR 1965 SC 101, Sri Ram Ram VIMAL KUMAR 2015.11.20 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 9 CWP No.18158 of 2015 Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay AIR 1959 SC 459, Hira Devi (Smt) v. District Board, Shahjahanpur AIR 1952 SC 362, Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar AIR 1953 SC 148, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, G. Narayanaswami v. G. Pannerselvam (1972) 3 SCC 717, N.S. Vardachari v. G. Vasantha Pai (1972) 2 SCC 594, Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth (1977) 4 SCC 193 and CST v. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad (1986) 3 SCC 50. Modifying and altering the scheme and applying it to others who are not otherwise entitled to under the scheme, will not also come under the principle of affirmative action adopted by courts sometimes in order to avoid discrimination. If we may say so, what the High Court has done in this case is a clear and naked usurpation of legislative power."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 122 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi vs The State Of Bombay(And Connected ... on 18 November, 1958

Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature the court could not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. Courts shall decide what the law is and not what it should be. The court of course adopts a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature but could not legislate itself. But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is subversive of the constitutional harmony and comity of instrumentalities. Vide P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries (1990) 2 SCC 378, Mangilal v. Suganchand Rathi AIR 1965 SC 101, Sri Ram Ram VIMAL KUMAR 2015.11.20 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 9 CWP No.18158 of 2015 Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay AIR 1959 SC 459, Hira Devi (Smt) v. District Board, Shahjahanpur AIR 1952 SC 362, Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar AIR 1953 SC 148, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, G. Narayanaswami v. G. Pannerselvam (1972) 3 SCC 717, N.S. Vardachari v. G. Vasantha Pai (1972) 2 SCC 594, Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth (1977) 4 SCC 193 and CST v. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad (1986) 3 SCC 50. Modifying and altering the scheme and applying it to others who are not otherwise entitled to under the scheme, will not also come under the principle of affirmative action adopted by courts sometimes in order to avoid discrimination. If we may say so, what the High Court has done in this case is a clear and naked usurpation of legislative power."
Supreme Court of India Cites 77 - Cited by 215 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Shrimati Hira Devi And Others vs District Board, Shahjahanpur on 20 October, 1952

Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature the court could not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. Courts shall decide what the law is and not what it should be. The court of course adopts a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature but could not legislate itself. But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is subversive of the constitutional harmony and comity of instrumentalities. Vide P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries (1990) 2 SCC 378, Mangilal v. Suganchand Rathi AIR 1965 SC 101, Sri Ram Ram VIMAL KUMAR 2015.11.20 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 9 CWP No.18158 of 2015 Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay AIR 1959 SC 459, Hira Devi (Smt) v. District Board, Shahjahanpur AIR 1952 SC 362, Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar AIR 1953 SC 148, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, G. Narayanaswami v. G. Pannerselvam (1972) 3 SCC 717, N.S. Vardachari v. G. Vasantha Pai (1972) 2 SCC 594, Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth (1977) 4 SCC 193 and CST v. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad (1986) 3 SCC 50. Modifying and altering the scheme and applying it to others who are not otherwise entitled to under the scheme, will not also come under the principle of affirmative action adopted by courts sometimes in order to avoid discrimination. If we may say so, what the High Court has done in this case is a clear and naked usurpation of legislative power."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 75 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Nalinakhya Bysack vs Shyam Sunder Haldar And Others on 29 January, 1953

Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature the court could not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. Courts shall decide what the law is and not what it should be. The court of course adopts a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature but could not legislate itself. But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is subversive of the constitutional harmony and comity of instrumentalities. Vide P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries (1990) 2 SCC 378, Mangilal v. Suganchand Rathi AIR 1965 SC 101, Sri Ram Ram VIMAL KUMAR 2015.11.20 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 9 CWP No.18158 of 2015 Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay AIR 1959 SC 459, Hira Devi (Smt) v. District Board, Shahjahanpur AIR 1952 SC 362, Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar AIR 1953 SC 148, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, G. Narayanaswami v. G. Pannerselvam (1972) 3 SCC 717, N.S. Vardachari v. G. Vasantha Pai (1972) 2 SCC 594, Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth (1977) 4 SCC 193 and CST v. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad (1986) 3 SCC 50. Modifying and altering the scheme and applying it to others who are not otherwise entitled to under the scheme, will not also come under the principle of affirmative action adopted by courts sometimes in order to avoid discrimination. If we may say so, what the High Court has done in this case is a clear and naked usurpation of legislative power."
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 152 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next