cites: 1655304

Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 0 - Cited by 122106

Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 5 - Cited by 1058585

Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996

In Krishnan Kakkanth Vs. Government of Kerala, (1997) 9 SCC 495 the Supreme Court observed:-

Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 188 - G N Ray - Full Document

Section 9 in Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 [Entire Act]

State of Tamilnadu - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 25

T.Lakshmipathi & Ors vs P.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors on 31 March, 2003

In Union of India vs. International Trading Co. 2003 (51) ALR 598 (vide paragraph 17) the Supreme Court observed:

Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 717 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

In Tata Cellular vs Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11 (vide paragraph 113) the Supreme Court observed:

Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Joseph Antony ( Sawant, J.) on 2 November, 1993

31. In the same decision the Supreme Court observed that judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision but the decision making process. (See also Pramod Kumar Misra vs. Indian Oil Corporation 2002 (4) AWC 3221, State of Kerala vs. Joseph Antony 1994 (1) SCC 658, etc.)

Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 54 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 27 February, 2003

In Indian Railway Construction Co. Limited vs. Ajay Kumar (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1206 (vide para 14) the Supreme Court observed that there are three grounds on which administration action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground is illegality, the second is irrationality and the third is procedural impropriety.

Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 425 - A Pasayat - Full Document