Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.37 seconds)Dalpat Kumar And Anr. vs Prahlad Singh And Ors. on 16 December, 1991
In Dalpat Kumar and Another vs. Prahlad Singh and Others, reported in
AIR 1993 SC 276, the Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the scope of interim
order i.e. the phrases "prima facie case", "balance of convenience" and
"irreparable loss" are not rhetoric phrases for incantation but words of width and
elasticity to meet myriad situations presented by man's ingenuity in given facts
and circumstances, but always is hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion
to meet the ends of Justice. The facts are eloquent and speak for themselves. It is
well-nigh impossible to find from facts prima facie case and balance of
convenience.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr vs Status Spinning Mills Ltd & Anr on 16 May, 2008
42. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.N. Electricity Board v. Status
Spg. Mills Ltd., (2008) 7 SCC 353 has categorically observed that a distinction
must be made between a policy decision and a statute. Whereas prima facie a
policy decision may not have any retroactive operation, a statute may have. ---"
State Of M.P. & Ors vs Yogendra Shrivastava on 7 October, 2009
43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. and Ors. v. Yogendra
Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 has held that it is well-settled that rights and
benefits which have already been earned or acquired under the existing rules cannot
be taken away by amending the rules with retrospective effect. For ready reference
the relevant para is being quoted as under:
Ex-Major N.C. Singhal vs Director General Armed Forces Medical ... on 17 December, 1971
"15. -- But it is well settled that rights and benefits which have already
been earned or acquired under the existing Rules cannot be taken away
by amending the Rules with retrospective effect. (See N.C. Singhal v.
Armed Forces Medical Services [(1972) 4 SCC 765] ; K.C. Arora v.
State of Haryana [(1984) 3 SCC 281 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 520] and T.R.
Kapur v. State of Haryana [1986 Supp SCC 584 : (1987) 2 ATC 595] .)
Therefore, it has to be held that while the amendment, even if it is to be
considered as otherwise valid, cannot affect the rights and benefits which
had accrued to the employees under the unamended rules. ---"
Ex. Capt. K.C. Arora And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 April, 1984
"15. -- But it is well settled that rights and benefits which have already
been earned or acquired under the existing Rules cannot be taken away
by amending the Rules with retrospective effect. (See N.C. Singhal v.
Armed Forces Medical Services [(1972) 4 SCC 765] ; K.C. Arora v.
State of Haryana [(1984) 3 SCC 281 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 520] and T.R.
Kapur v. State of Haryana [1986 Supp SCC 584 : (1987) 2 ATC 595] .)
Therefore, it has to be held that while the amendment, even if it is to be
considered as otherwise valid, cannot affect the rights and benefits which
had accrued to the employees under the unamended rules. ---"
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chairman Lic Of India & Ors vs A Masilamani on 23 November, 2012
47. Further, the meaning of 'consideration' is the active application of mind of
the factual aspect, as per the definition of 'consideration' given by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. A.
Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, wherein, at paragraph-19, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as under: - ―
"19. The word "consider" is of great significance. The dictionary
meaning of the same is, ―to think over , ―to regard as , or
―deem to be . Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that
there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term
―"consider" postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a
matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should
reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material
available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal
such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply
adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and
proceed to affirm its order.
1