Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
It is too late in the day for an institution like respondent no. 1 to adopt the posture that the activity in question is commercial and as respondent no. 1 is engaged in trading activity it would be open to it to act as it considers appropriate for the purpose of protecting its business interest, An instrumentality of the State as has been laid down by this Court in a series of authoritative decisions beginning with R.D. Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. (1979) 1 SCR 1042 and in Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and a number of decisions thereafter has to act within the ambit of Rule of Law and would not be allowed to conduct itself arbitrarily and in its dealings with the public would be liable to judicial review.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
It is too late in the day for an institution like respondent no. 1 to adopt the posture that the activity in question is commercial and as respondent no. 1 is engaged in trading activity it would be open to it to act as it considers appropriate for the purpose of protecting its business interest, An instrumentality of the State as has been laid down by this Court in a series of authoritative decisions beginning with R.D. Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. (1979) 1 SCR 1042 and in Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and a number of decisions thereafter has to act within the ambit of Rule of Law and would not be allowed to conduct itself arbitrarily and in its dealings with the public would be liable to judicial review.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 113 in The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 159 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 617 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Raj Narain & Ors on 24 January, 1975
9. The question which still remains to be answered is as to whether when the highest offer in response to an invitation is rejected would not the public authority be required to provide reasons for such action? Mr. Dwivedi has not asked us to look for a reasoned decision but has submitted that it is in the interest of the public authority itself, the State and every one in the society at large that reasons for State action are placed on record and are even communicated to the persons from whom the offers came so that the dealings remain above board; the interest of the public authority is adequately protected and a citizen knows where he stands with reference to his offer. What this Court said in State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain & Ors. (1975) 4 SCC 428 may be usefully recalled here:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1