Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.27 seconds)Section 5 in The Aircraft Act, 1934 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Amrik Singh on 14 October, 1993
In Union of India & Anr. v. Amrik Singh & Ors., AIR 1994
SC 2316, this Court examined the scope of executive instructions
issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General for making the
appointments under the provisions of Indian Audit and Accounts
Department (Administrative Officers, Accounts Officers and Audit
Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1964, and came to the conclusion that
the CAG of India had necessary competence to issue departmental
1
instructions on matters of conditions of service of persons serving in
Department, being the Head of the Department, in spite of the
statutory rules existing in this regard. The Court came to the
conclusion that an enabling provision is there and in view thereof, the
CAG had exercised his powers and issued the instructions which are
not inconsistent with the statutory rules, the same are binding for the
reason that the provision in executive instructions has been made with
the required competence by the CAG.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Hirendra Pal Singh Etc on 3 December, 2010
23. This Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Hirendra Pal Singh
etc., JT (2010) 13 SC 610, considered a large number of judgments
particularly in Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of
Madras & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 928; B.N. Tewari v. Union of India
& Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1430; Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)
Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 515;
Firm A. T. B. Mehtabmajid And Co vs State Of Madras And Another on 22 November, 1962
23. This Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Hirendra Pal Singh
etc., JT (2010) 13 SC 610, considered a large number of judgments
particularly in Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of
Madras & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 928; B.N. Tewari v. Union of India
& Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1430; Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)
Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 515;
B. N. Tiwari vs Union Of India & Others on 10 December, 1964
23. This Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Hirendra Pal Singh
etc., JT (2010) 13 SC 610, considered a large number of judgments
particularly in Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of
Madras & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 928; B.N. Tewari v. Union of India
& Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1430; Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)
Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 515;
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) ... vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 6 December, 1984
23. This Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Hirendra Pal Singh
etc., JT (2010) 13 SC 610, considered a large number of judgments
particularly in Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid & Co. v. State of
Madras & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 928; B.N. Tewari v. Union of India
& Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1430; Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)
Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 515;
West U.P. Sugar Mills Association And ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 7 February, 2002
West U.P. Sugar Mills Association & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
AIR 2002 SC 948; Zile Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2004) 8
SCC 1; and State of Kerala & Anr. v. Peoples Union for Civil
Liberties, Kerala State Unit & Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 46, and came to
the conclusion that once the old rule has been substituted by the new
rule, it stands obliterated, thus ceases to exist and under no
circumstance, can it be revived in case the new rule is held to be
invalid and struck down by the Court, though position would be
different in case a statutory amendment by the Legislature, is held to
be bad for want of legislative competence. In that situation, the
repealed statutory provisions would revive automatically.
Zile Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 October, 2004
West U.P. Sugar Mills Association & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
AIR 2002 SC 948; Zile Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2004) 8
SCC 1; and State of Kerala & Anr. v. Peoples Union for Civil
Liberties, Kerala State Unit & Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 46, and came to
the conclusion that once the old rule has been substituted by the new
rule, it stands obliterated, thus ceases to exist and under no
circumstance, can it be revived in case the new rule is held to be
invalid and struck down by the Court, though position would be
different in case a statutory amendment by the Legislature, is held to
be bad for want of legislative competence. In that situation, the
repealed statutory provisions would revive automatically.
State Of Kerala & Anr vs Peoples Union For Civil Liberties & Ors on 21 July, 2009
West U.P. Sugar Mills Association & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
AIR 2002 SC 948; Zile Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2004) 8
SCC 1; and State of Kerala & Anr. v. Peoples Union for Civil
Liberties, Kerala State Unit & Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 46, and came to
the conclusion that once the old rule has been substituted by the new
rule, it stands obliterated, thus ceases to exist and under no
circumstance, can it be revived in case the new rule is held to be
invalid and struck down by the Court, though position would be
different in case a statutory amendment by the Legislature, is held to
be bad for want of legislative competence. In that situation, the
repealed statutory provisions would revive automatically.