Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.41 seconds)
Sec.& Curator Victoria Memorial Hall vs Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors on 9 March, 2010
cites
The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963
27. The Constitution Bench of this Court in The University
of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr. AIR 1965 SC 491
held that "normally the Court should be slow to interfere
with the opinions expressed by the experts."
State Of Bihar & Anr vs Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee & Ors on 3 December, 1974
28. This view has consistently been reiterated by this
Court as is evident from the Judgments in The State of
Bihar & Anr. Vs. A.K. Mukherjee & Ors. AIR 1975 SC 192;
Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke etc.etc. Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan
etc.etc.
Central Areca Nut & Cocoa Marketing & ... vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 16 September, 1997
AIR 1990 SC 434; Central Areca Nut & Cocoa
Marketing & Processing Co-operative Ltd. Vs. State of
Karnataka & Ors. (1997) 8 SCC 31; and Dental Council of
India Vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust & Anr. (2001) 5
SCC 486.
The Dental Council Of India vs Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust & Anr on 25 April, 2001
AIR 1990 SC 434; Central Areca Nut & Cocoa
Marketing & Processing Co-operative Ltd. Vs. State of
Karnataka & Ors. (1997) 8 SCC 31; and Dental Council of
India Vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust & Anr. (2001) 5
SCC 486.
P.M. Bhargava & Ors vs University Grants Commission & Anr on 5 May, 2004
29. However, if the provision of law is to be read or
understood or interpreted, the Court has to play an
important role. [Read : P.M. Bhargava & Ors. Vs.
University Grants Commission & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 3478 and
Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) Vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University,
Sirsa & Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 284.
State Of Orissa vs Dhaniram Luhar on 4 February, 2004
"The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential
attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter
before Courts, and which is the only indication to know
about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as
also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied
its mind." [Vide State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar AIR
22
2004 SC 1794; and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors.
(2004) 5 SCC 573].
State Of Rajasthan vs Sohan Lal And Ors on 20 April, 2004
"The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential
attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter
before Courts, and which is the only indication to know
about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as
also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied
its mind." [Vide State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar AIR
22
2004 SC 1794; and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors.
(2004) 5 SCC 573].
Vishnu Dev Sharma vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 23 January, 2008
32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It
introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it
becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by
objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order
indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is
subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide
Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664;
Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008)
3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax
Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State
of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008
SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC
2328; Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC
258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC
513; and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram & Anr.
(2009) 4 SCC 422].
M/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Sales Tax Officer,Rourkela-I ... on 10 July, 2008
32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It
introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it
becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by
objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order
indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is
subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide
Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664;
Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008)
3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax
Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State
of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008
SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC
2328; Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC
258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC
513; and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram & Anr.
(2009) 4 SCC 422].