Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.59 seconds)
M/S Todays Fashion vs The State Of Bihar on 16 April, 2026 cites

Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967

19. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1967 SC 1910] held as under: (AIR p. 1914, para 7) Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026 46/53 "7. ... It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed." (emphasis added)
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 592 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 March, 1989

"59. The law laid down above has consistently been followed and it is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot issue orders / office memorandum / executive instructions in contravention of the statutory rules. However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant it. Such instructions should be subservient to the statutory provisions. (Vide Union of India vs. Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026 48/53 Majji Jangamayya (1977) 1 SCC 606, P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P. (1987) 3 SCC 622, Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 541, C. Rangaswamaiah v.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 198 - N D Ojha - Full Document

Chitra vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 21 August, 2015

54. So far as the grievance of the petitioner- Awanish Construction in C.W.J.C. No.6991 of 2025 that the petitioner was precluded from operating the sand ghat for altogether 70 days, which according to the petitioner, is attributable to the respondents and therefore, he is entitled to the refund of royalty for the aforesaid period is concerned, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities with a detailed representation and supporting documents, which shall be decided by the respondent authority in accordance with law, particularly considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Durga Finvest (P) Ltd. (supra) and the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitra v. State of Kerala (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - V Sen - Full Document

Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986

26. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon Central Inland Water Transport Corporation (supra) and L.I.C. vs. Consumer Education Research Centre reported as (1995) 5 SCC 482 to argue that if a contract or a clause thereunder is found to be unreasonable or unfair or irrational, then it must be considered, if the relative bargaining power of the contracting parties were unequal and the fact that contract has been signed on dotted lines by the party having unequal bargaining power then judicial review would be available.
Supreme Court of India Cites 111 - Cited by 1191 - D P Madon - Full Document

Joshi Technologies International Inc vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2015

18. The learned Counsels for the petitioners have drawn strength from the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joshi Technologies International Patna High Court CWJC No.6393 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026 26/53 Inc. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that at the stage of entering into a contract, the State acts purely in its executive capacity and is bound by the obligations of fairness. It has also been held that a writ can be issued where there is executive action unsupported by law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 393 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next