Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Bharpai Devi vs The State Of Rajasthan on 2 August, 2021 cites

Chandra Kishore Jha vs Mahavir Prasad & Ors on 21 September, 1999

This proposition has been later on reiterated in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad reported in 1999 (8) SCC 266 : (AIR 1999 SC 3558), Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka reported in 2001 (4) SCC 9 : (AIR 2001 SC 1512) and Gujarat (Downloaded on 02/08/2021 at 09:00:02 PM) (14 of 18) [CW-312/2021] Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Essar Power Limited reported in 2008 (4) SCC 755 : (AIR 2008 SC 1921)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 234 - Full Document

Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh And Another vs The State Of Vindhya Pradesh on 22 May, 1953

"53. It is well settled that where the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. This proposition of law laid down in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 ChD426, 431 was first adopted by the Judicial Committee in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor reported in AIR 1936 PC 253 and then followed by a bench of three Judges of this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 SC 322.
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 603 - B Jagannadhadas - Full Document

Nazir Ahmad vs Emperor (No. 2) on 16 June, 1936

"53. It is well settled that where the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. This proposition of law laid down in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 ChD426, 431 was first adopted by the Judicial Committee in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor reported in AIR 1936 PC 253 and then followed by a bench of three Judges of this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1954 SC 322.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 800 - Full Document

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd vs Essar Power Limited on 9 August, 2016

This proposition has been later on reiterated in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad reported in 1999 (8) SCC 266 : (AIR 1999 SC 3558), Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka reported in 2001 (4) SCC 9 : (AIR 2001 SC 1512) and Gujarat (Downloaded on 02/08/2021 at 09:00:02 PM) (14 of 18) [CW-312/2021] Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Essar Power Limited reported in 2008 (4) SCC 755 : (AIR 2008 SC 1921)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 195 - A K Goel - Full Document

Nasiruddin And Ors vs Sita Ram Agarwal on 28 January, 2003

30. In the opinion of this Court, above principle canvassed by Mr. Rajpurohit is applicable only in the cases when the provisions under consideration deal with performance of public duties under an enactment. Almost all the judgments in which the use of word "shall" has been held as directory are, those, in which the statute provided for time limit of doing a particular thing. In case the time limit was not met by the public authority and consequence has not been given in the enactment, the provision has been held directory. (Re: Nasiruddin Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 577).
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 351 - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan And Ors vs Samleta on 11 October, 2018

14. Reading the relevant part of the Division Bench judgment in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Samleta (highlighted portion of para 12(ii) above), it was argued that the Division Bench has clearly held that consent has to be obtained from Panchayati Raj Department by the Medical Health Department, while transferring an employee from one District to another. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, such adjudication is unequivocally mandatory.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 0 - Cited by 233 - Full Document
1   2 Next