Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.95 seconds)The Police Act, 1949
The Punjab Police Act, 2007
Vineet Narain & Others vs Union Of India & Another on 18 December, 1997
His
further submission was that the present case was governed by the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh's case (supra) and not
Centre for PIL case (supra) which pertains to the appointment of C.V.C. He
highlighted that in Prakash Singh's case (supra), test for removal is
conviction in a criminal case and not merely implication in a criminal case
and the test for appointment was specifically stated in para No. 60 of
Vineet Narain's case (supra) accepted in Prakash Singh's case (supra) as
CWP No. 6359 of 2012 22
well, namely, seniority, integrity, experience in investigation and anti-
corruption etc.
Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 November, 2003
26. Likewise, in Ashok Kumar Pandey's case (supra), the Supreme
Court emphasized that the Courts have to be watchful that no one's
character is besmirched and that justifiable executive actions are not
assailed for oblique motives. The Court has to be extremely careful that it
does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the
executive and the legislature.
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998
The Supreme Court
exhorted the High Courts to throw them out on the basis of the decision in
Duryodhan Sahu's case (supra).
The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963
In University of Mysore and
another Vs. C.D.Govinda Rao and another AIR 1965 SC 491, the
Supreme Court held that before quo-warranto can be claimed the Court
must have satisfied two things, namely, (i) the office in question is a public
CWP No. 6359 of 2012 26
office; and (ii) the holder is a usurper without legal authority. This will lead
to an enquiry as to whether the appointment has been made in accordance
with law or not.
Statesman (Private) Ltd vs H. R. Deb & Ors on 2 April, 1968
Further, in Statesman (Private) Ltd. Vs. H.R.Deb and
others AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1495, the Supreme Court observed
that the High Court will issue a quo-warranto only when there is a clear
infringement of relevant legal provisions. It can clearly be issued in those
cases where the person appointed to an office does not have the necessary
qualification attached to that office/post and/or the appointment is contrary
to the Recruitment Rules.
Kumar Padma Prasad vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 March, 1992
Likewise, if a person is appointed to an office,
contrary to the constitutional provisions, such an appointment can be
challenged by a writ of quo-warranto (See Kumar Padma Prasad Vs.
Union of India and others 1992(2) SCC 428.
State Of Maharashtra vs Anderson Finn Kay Ove on 25 April, 1978
"Turpitude - In its ordinary sense, inherent baseness or
vileness of principle or action; shameful wickedness;
depravity. In its legal sense, everything done contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. State v.
Anderson 117 Kan 230; Hughes v. State Board of
Medical Examiners, 162 Ga. 246; 134 S.E. 42, 46. An
action showing gross depravity. Traders & General Ins.