Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (3.02 seconds)
Channappa vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21 August, 2019 cites

Supreme Court Reports [1962] Supp.Dr. ... vs The Governing Body Of The Nalanda ... on 15 December, 1961

In Umakant Saran Vs. State of Bihar, the Court referred to its earlier decisionin Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. Nalanda College and observed that: (Umakanth Saran Case, SCC p.488, para 10) "10. ... in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance".
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 446 - J L Kapur - Full Document

Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... vs K.S. Jagannathan & Anr on 1 April, 1986

In regard to efficacy of order dated 10.9.1993, the respondents have relied upon power to issue mandamus and the effect thereof .A reference has been made to the decisions in CAG V. K.S.Jagannathan & Anr.(1986)2SCC679 and Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. V. V.R. Rudani. In CAG the court observed (SCC pp.692-93, para 20) "20. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give 10 directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 475 - D P Madon - Full Document

Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 1997

In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622 it has been observed that mandamus is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution to compel for a public duty which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. 'Shall' and 'must' sometimes be interpreted as 'may'. This Court has observed: (SCC pp. 632-33 & 634, paras 22, 23 & 29) "22. Mandamus which is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is requested to be issued, inter alia, to compel performance of public duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. Statutory duties, if they are 12 intended to be mandatory in character, are indicated by the use of the words "shall" or "must". But this is not conclusive as "shall" and "must" have, sometimes, been interpreted as "may". What is determinative of the nature of duty, whether it is obligatory, mandatory or directory, is the scheme of the statute in which the "duty" has been set out. Even if the "duty" is not set out clearly and specifically in the statute, it may be implied as correlative to a "right".
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 499 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1   2 3 Next