Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.30 seconds)

State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014

"22. The counsels for the Respondents have also countered the present petition on the ground that there has been a delay on the part of the Petitioners in approaching the Court. The judgment of this Court in Naveen Kumar Jha (supra), was challenged by the Respondents before the Supreme Court. The challenge could not be sustained and the petition was dismissed. We are informed that Respondents have since implemented the aforesaid decision. On 58 OA Nos.642 of 2015 and 163 other connected OAs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1005 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000

Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that mere dismissal of the SLP against the Karan Anant Purao (supra) will not make the judgment as precedent in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kunhayammed & Others vs. State of Kerala & Anothers, reported in (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 359 and also in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Oxford University Press etc vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2001 (1) Supreme 357 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled in Para 59 as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 1157 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

State Of Bihar & Ors vs Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr on 27 April, 2000

law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent" Mr. Shetty, learned counsel for the respondents further places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar & Others versus Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Another reported in 2000 SCC (L&S) 845 to contend that "The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals, other cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 788 - Full Document

Gursharan Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors on 2 February, 1996

In this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh & Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation held that citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court observed.............".
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 360 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next