Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.70 seconds)
Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005 cites

P.T. Rajan vs T.P.M. Sahir And Ors on 26 September, 2003

The question as to whether it can be given effect to or not is, thus, required to be judged on its own without reference to the circular issued by the Commissioner of Excise. Cassus Omissus, it is well known, cannot be supplied by the court. [See P.T. Rajan vs. T.P.M. Sahir and Others  (2003) 8 SCC 498] We have noticed hereinbefore that despite the fact that the order of injunction was issued by the High Court while modifying the interim order on 7.3.2005, the State was asked not to publish the selection list. The contentions raised in the petitions for grant of special leave to appeal, however, leave no manner of doubt that such selection list whether in violation of the order of the High Court or otherwise had been published. If the said rules are considered to be retrospective, admittedly, the affidavits had not been filed on the next day of such selection and, thus, the rules are not capable of being implemented.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 132 - S B Sinha - Full Document

K. N. Guruswamy vs The State Of Mysore And Others on 24 May, 1954

Furthermore, it is now beyond any cavil that economic policies of the State although ordinarily would not be interfered with, but the same is not beyond the pale of judicial review. [See Cellular Operators Association of India and Others vs. Union of India & Others  (2003) 3 SCC 186] It is also not a case where no relief can be granted to the writ petitioners, as was done in the case of K.N. Guruswamy (supra), having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 199 - V Bose - Full Document

Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979

The Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and the rules framed thereunder are regulatory in nature. They are being so enacted so as to ensure public health as trade in liquor is considered to be obnoxious one. The State has a duty to see that its people do not consume spurious or adulterated liquor. The Act and the rules no doubt contain provisions for cancellation and/or suspension of the licence in the event the conditions laid down therein are violated, but it is beyond any cavil that before a licence is granted, the applicant must satisfy all the statutory conditions and meet the eligibility requirements. [See Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra) and R. Prabha Devi (supra). Rule 8(e) provided for a requirement to furnish a bank draft from a nationalized bank as earnest money. Rule 9 of the Rules preserves all other eligibility requirements. The Circular dated 15.3.2003 dispensed with the requirements as contained in Rule 8(e) of the Rules. The number of outlets were increased by 92 from 812 to 904. The High Court has noticed that none of the eligibility requirements except those as contained in Rule 9(c) of the Rules had been observed by the Committee. The State has earned Rs. 77 crores from 2.65 lakhs applicants whose eligibilities were not verified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. & ... vs C.K. Rajan & Others on 14 August, 2003

It may not be necessary for us to consider as to whether the public interest litigation should have been entertained by the High Court or not. The High Court did entertain the public interest litigation without any objection and ultimately allowed the same. Furthermore it is well settled that even in a case where a petitioner might have moved the court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. [See Guruyayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. Vs. C.K. Rajan and Others [(2003) 7 SCC 546  para 50] and Prahlad Singh vs. Col. Sukhdev Singh (1987) 1 SCC 727] ACQUIESCENE :
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 296 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Prahlad Singh vs Col. Sukhdev Singh on 24 February, 1987

It may not be necessary for us to consider as to whether the public interest litigation should have been entertained by the High Court or not. The High Court did entertain the public interest litigation without any objection and ultimately allowed the same. Furthermore it is well settled that even in a case where a petitioner might have moved the court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. [See Guruyayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. Vs. C.K. Rajan and Others [(2003) 7 SCC 546  para 50] and Prahlad Singh vs. Col. Sukhdev Singh (1987) 1 SCC 727] ACQUIESCENE :
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 60 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next