Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (2.41 seconds)

Chief Information Commissioner vs High Court Of Gujarat on 4 March, 2020

Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Rules framed by the High Court are mandatory, no one can divert from this and Rules framed by the High Court are not to be overlooked. He has relied on the para 17 of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner Vs. High of Gujarat and Another reported in 2020 (4) SCC 702 in which it has been held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 59 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax,Mumbai vs Anjum M.H.Ghaswala & Ors on 18 October, 2001

It is well settled that if the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then, in order to be valid the act must be done in the prescribed manner alone [See: Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and ors. (2002) 1 SCC 633; Captain Sube Singh and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 440; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358; and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405]. Absence of the Central Government's approval to reservation and a notification as required by Section 17A, therefore, renders the State Government's claim of reservation untenable till such time a valid reservation is made in accordance with law. It is trite that the State Government's general executive power cannot be invoked to make a reservation dehors Section 17A.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 678 - Full Document

Captain Sube Singh & Ors vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors on 30 April, 2004

It is well settled that if the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then, in order to be valid the act must be done in the prescribed manner alone [See: Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and ors. (2002) 1 SCC 633; Captain Sube Singh and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 440; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358; and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405]. Absence of the Central Government's approval to reservation and a notification as required by Section 17A, therefore, renders the State Government's claim of reservation untenable till such time a valid reservation is made in accordance with law. It is trite that the State Government's general executive power cannot be invoked to make a reservation dehors Section 17A.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 93 - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Singhara Singh And Others on 16 August, 1963

It is well settled that if the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then, in order to be valid the act must be done in the prescribed manner alone [See: Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and ors. (2002) 1 SCC 633; Captain Sube Singh and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 440; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358; and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405]. Absence of the Central Government's approval to reservation and a notification as required by Section 17A, therefore, renders the State Government's claim of reservation untenable till such time a valid reservation is made in accordance with law. It is trite that the State Government's general executive power cannot be invoked to make a reservation dehors Section 17A.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 785 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

It is well settled that if the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then, in order to be valid the act must be done in the prescribed manner alone [See: Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and ors. (2002) 1 SCC 633; Captain Sube Singh and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 440; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358; and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405]. Absence of the Central Government's approval to reservation and a notification as required by Section 17A, therefore, renders the State Government's claim of reservation untenable till such time a valid reservation is made in accordance with law. It is trite that the State Government's general executive power cannot be invoked to make a reservation dehors Section 17A.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 3 Next