Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (1.47 seconds)Baleshwar Dass & Ors. Etc vs State Of U.P. & Ors. Etc on 19 August, 1980
"11. Pronouncements of law, which are not part of the
ratio decidendi are classed as obiter dicta and are not
authoritative. With all respect to the learned Judge who
passed the order in Jamna Das' case and to the learned
Judge who agreed with him, we cannot concede that this
Court is bound to follow it. It was delivered without
argument, without reference to the relevant provisions
of the Act conferring express power on the Municipal
Corporation to direct removal of encroachments from
any public place like pavement or public streets, and
without any citation of authority. Accordingly, we do not
propose to uphold the decision of the High Court
because, it seems to us that it is wrong in principle and
cannot be justified by the terms of the relevant
provisions. A decision should be treated as given per
incuriam when it is given in ignorance of the terms of a
statute or of a rule having the force of a statute. So far
as the order shows, no argument was addressed to the
Court on the question or not whether any direction could
properly be made compelling the Municipal Corporation
to construct a stall at the pitching site of a PG NO 939
pavement squatter. Professor P.J. Fitzgerald, editor of the
Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th edn. explains the
concept of sub silentio at p. 153 in these words:
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988
The Apex Court in the judgment cited by learned counsel for
the respondents, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, in AIR 1989 Supreme Court
p. 38 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur), has dealt
with the issue where casual expressions are made and how the
judgments are treated as pronouncement of law and which are not
part of ratio decidendi and are treated as obiter dicta and are not
authoritative.
M/S Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 December, 1999
The Apex Court in the case of Hyderabad Asbestos Cement
Products 7 Anr. Vs. Union of india & Ors., reported in (2000)1 SCC
426 has considered the scope of disjunctive and where the words
are separated by the use of an "or" and there the availability of
one of the two alternatives would suffice. The relevant para 8 of
the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
Ramesh Chand Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 August, 2001
6. Ramesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Raj., [2001(1) SCC
637]
S.B. Patwardhan & Others Etc. Etc vs State Of Maharashtra & Others on 4 May, 1977
"29. Substantive capacity is a flexible expression which
cannot be frozen by current officialese, nor by the
conditions that obtained in the remote past when the rule
was framed. On the contrary, its meaning must be
consistent with Art. 16 and must avoid the pitfalls of
arbitrariness and irrational injustice. So viewed, we hold
that the appointment need not necessarily be to a
permanent post. It is sufficient even if it is to a
temporary post of long duration. In a Department which
had permanent posts and temporary posts of a quasi-
permanent nature, there is not much to distinguish the
quality of service as between the two. Patwardhan's case
and Chauhan's case have primarily or in passing clarified
the equal value of officiating service."
Major R.S. Rawat And Anr. vs Tilak Raj And Ors. on 3 December, 2003
This Court in the case of R.S.Rawat Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors., reported in 1993(1) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 79 has
considered the nature of appointment as to whether it should be
treated as adhoc or substantive. The relevant portion of the
judgment are quoted hereunder:-
Shyam Prakash Saini And Ors vs State Of Raj And Ors on 28 June, 2017
The petitioners have filed an additional affidavit in S.B.Civil
Writ Petition No.9929/2017 (Shyam Prakash Saini & Ors. Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors., wherein it has been stated that the RPSC had
published a press-note informing to the candidates who had
applied earlier for the post of Junior Accountant and Tehsil
Revenue Accountant, they could edit their application until
01.10.2016 and make necessary correction. It has been asserted
that RPSC had provided format to make correction in the
application from and the same format itself stated in column no.3
the correct entry and in the Row no. 3 the category. The RPSC
made it clear by permitting the candidates to change their
category, before the last date i.e. 01.10.2016.
Kamta Pd Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2015
12. The same view has been expressed by Supreme
Court in PD Agrawal v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1987 Supreme
Court 1676) as well as in Ashok Gulati v. B.S. Jain ( AIR
1987 Supreme Court 424).
Ashok Gulati & Ors vs B.S. Jain & Ors on 17 December, 1986
12. The same view has been expressed by Supreme
Court in PD Agrawal v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1987 Supreme
Court 1676) as well as in Ashok Gulati v. B.S. Jain ( AIR
1987 Supreme Court 424).