Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 89 (0.79 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Companies Act, 1956
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
"14. We may also like to point out that the aforesaid examination of
the issue undertaken by the High Court is keeping in view the principles
laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments and the tests which are
to be applied to arrive at the decision as to whether a particular authority
can be termed as "State" or "other authority" within the meaning of
Article 12.It took note of the Constitution Bench decision in Ajay
Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] wherein the
following six tests were culled out from its earlier judgment in Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3
SCC 489] : (Ajay Hasia case [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi,
(1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] , SCC p. 737, para 9)
"(1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the
corporation is held by the Government, it would go a long way
22[(2015) 4 SCC 670]
W.P. (C) 2942/2020 & W.P.(C) 2059/2021 Page 42 of 55
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEHA
Signing Date:19.07.2022
13:45:15
towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or
agency of the Government.
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
Referring the
decision in Ajay Hasia's (supra), the Full Bench recorded finding that the
petitioner failed to prove that the Government controls the activities or
decision making power of the managing body of the Federation,
Paragraph 16 of the Report in U.P. State Cooperative Land Development
Bank Ltd.'s case (supra) reads thus:
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology & ... on 16 April, 2002
In view of the aforesaid authoritative decision of the
Constitution Bench (seven Judges) in Pradeep Kumar
Biswas [Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical
W.P. (C) 2942/2020 & W.P.(C) 2059/2021 Page 8 of 55
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEHA
Signing Date:19.07.2022
13:45:15
Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111: 2002 SCC (L&S) 633] , it would be
wholly unnecessary for us to consider the other judgments cited
by the learned counsel for the parties.
The Multi-State Co-Operative Societies Act, 2002
K.K. Saksena vs International Commission On ... on 25 April, 2011
34. Thus, contracts of a purely private nature would not be subject to
writ jurisdiction merely by reason of the fact that they are structured by
statutory provisions. The only exception to this principle arises in a
situation where the contract of service is governed or regulated by a
W.P. (C) 2942/2020 & W.P.(C) 2059/2021 Page 48 of 55
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEHA
Signing Date:19.07.2022
13:45:15
statutory provision. Hence, for instance, in K.K. Saksena [K.K.
Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage, (2015) 4
SCC 670 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 654 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 119] this
Court held that when an employee is a workman governed by the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it constitutes an exception to the general
principle that a contract of personal service is not capable of being
specifically enforced or performed.