Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (0.69 seconds)
Kinsfolk Infra Engineering vs State Of Gujarat on 1 December, 2021 cites

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

"It can no longer be doubted at this point of time that Article 14 of the Constitution of India applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. (See Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 S.C. 1628 and Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 S.C. 1982). In Col.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990

This decision was relied upon in Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) vs. State of U.P. [(1991) 1 SCC 212] to reject the argument made on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh that in term of Clause 3 of para 7.06 the services of the Government Pleaders could be terminated at any time without assigning any cause as would appear from the following extract of the decision of Supreme Court :
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1487 - J S Verma - Full Document

Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003

71 We are of the view having regard to the facts of the present case that the writ applicant had a legitimate expectation to be treated fairly in the matter of grant of extension in view of the clear cut Tender clause Page 43 of 45 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 06:16:58 IST 2022 C/SCA/10321/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2021 No.4.7 referred to above. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has been recognized by the Supreme Court as constituting a substantive and enforceable right in appropriate cases to import the principles of natural justice in favour of a party whose civil rights are likely to be affected if the Government departs from and takes decision contrary to the legitimate expectation of a party.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 1154 - Full Document

Liberty Oil Mills & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 1 May, 1984

"The other part of Clause 3 which enables the Government to terminate the appointment at any time without assigning any cause can also not be considered in the manner, suggested by the learned Additional Advocate General. The termination may be made even during the subsistence of the term of appointment and without assigning any cause means without communicating any cause to the appointee whose appointment is terminated. However, without assigning any cause is not to be equated with without existence of any cause. It merely means that the reason for which the termination is made need not to be assigned or communicated to the appointee. It was held in Liberty Oil Mills vs. Union of India, AIR 1984 S.C. 1271 that the expression without assigning any reason implies that the decision has to be communicated, but reasons for the decision have not to be stated; but the reasons must exist, otherwise, the decision would be arbitrary. The non-assigning of reasons or the non-communication thereof may be based on public policy, but termination of an appointment without the existence of any cogent reason in furtherance of the object for which the power is given would be arbitrary and, therefore, against public policy. Clause 3 of para 7.06 must, therefore, be understood to mean that the appointment of a District Government Counsel is not to be equated with appointment to a post under the Government in the strict sense, which does not necessarily mean that it results in denuding the Page 35 of 45 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 06:16:58 IST 2022 C/SCA/10321/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2021 office of its public character; and that the appointment may be terminated even during currency of the term by only communicating the decision of termination without communicating the reasons which led to the termination. It does not mean that the appointment is at the sweet will of the Government which can be terminated at any time, even without the existence of any cogent reasons during the subsistence of the term..............In our opinion, the wide sweep of Article 14 undoubtedly takes within its fold the impugned circular issued by the State of U.P. in exercise of its executive power, irrespective of the precise nature of appointment of the Government counsel in the districts and the other rights, contractual or statutory, which the appointees may have. It is for this reason that we base our decision on the ground that independent of any statutory right, available to the appointees, and assuming for the purpose of this case that the rights flow only from the contract of appointment, the impugned circular, issued in exercise of the executive power of the State, must satisfy Article 14 of the Constitution and if it is shown to be arbitrary, it must be struck down."
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 570 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next