Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.47 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... vs K.S. Jagannathan & Anr on 1 April, 1986
However, we may notice that in the Comptroller and Auditor General
of India and Anr. Vs. K.S. Jagannathan and another [(1986) 2 SCC 679 :
1987 SC 537] this Court upon considering a large number of decisions
including Dwarkanath Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle, Kanpur
[(1965) 3 SCR 536], Hochtief Gammon Vs. State of Orissa [(1976) 1 SCR
667], Mayor of Rochester Vs. Regina [1858 EB & E 1024], The King Vs.
Revising Barrister for the Borough of Hanley [(1912) 3 KB 518], Padfield
Vs. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968 AC 997] and
Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume I, paragraph 89
observed:
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 July, 1989
"The legislative function of Parliament has been
delegated to the Chief Justice of India by Article
146(2). It is not disputed that the function of the
Chief Justice of India or the Judge or the officers
of the Court authorised by him in framing rules
laying down the conditions of service, is legislative
in nature. The conditions of service that may be
prescribed by the rules framed by the Chief Justice
of India under Article 146(2) will also necessarily
include salary, allowances, leave and pensions of
the officers and servants of the Supreme Court.
The proviso to Article 146(2) puts a restriction on
the power of the the Chief Justice of India by
providing that the rules made under Article 146(2)
shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances,
leave or pensions, require the approval of the
President of India. Prima facie, therefore, the
conditions of service of the employees of the
Supreme Court that are laid down by the Chief
Justice of India by framing the rules will be final
and conclusive, except that with regard to salaries,
allowances, leave or pensions the approval of the
President of India is required. In other words, if
the President of India does not approve of the
salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, it will not
have any effect. The reason for requiring the
approval of the President of India regarding
salaries, allowances, leave or pensions is the
involvement of the financial liability of the
government."
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990
In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and
Others [(1991) 1 SCC 212], however, the Court sought to draw a distinction
between the powers of public authorities vis-`-vis the private authorities
referring to Wade's Administrative Law, 6th Edition, page 401 to the
following effect and stating:
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Escorts Ltd. & Ors on 19 December, 1985
The power of judicial review of High Court as also this Court is now
well-defined in a series of decisions of this Court. It is trite that the court
will not exercise its jurisdiction to entertain a writ application wherein public
law element is not involved. (See Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Escorts
AIR 1986 SC 1370, F.C.I. Vs. Jagannath Dutta, AIR 1993 SC 1494, State
of Gujarat Vs. Meghraj Peth Raj Shah Charitable Trust, (1994) 3 SCC 552,
Assistant Excise Commissioner Vs. Issac Peter, (1994) 4 SCC 104, National
Highway Authority of India Vs. M/s. Ganga Enterprises & Anr. 2003 (7)
SCALE 171)
In any event, the modern trend also points to judicial restraint in
administration action as has been held in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India
[(1994) 6 SCC 651], Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner,
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Others [(2000) 5 SCC 287], W.B.
State Electricity Board Vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and Others [(2001) 2
SCC 451] and L.I.C. v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, [AIR
1995 SC 1811].
Asstt. Excise Commissioner vs Issac Peter on 22 February, 1994
The power of judicial review of High Court as also this Court is now
well-defined in a series of decisions of this Court. It is trite that the court
will not exercise its jurisdiction to entertain a writ application wherein public
law element is not involved. (See Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Escorts
AIR 1986 SC 1370, F.C.I. Vs. Jagannath Dutta, AIR 1993 SC 1494, State
of Gujarat Vs. Meghraj Peth Raj Shah Charitable Trust, (1994) 3 SCC 552,
Assistant Excise Commissioner Vs. Issac Peter, (1994) 4 SCC 104, National
Highway Authority of India Vs. M/s. Ganga Enterprises & Anr. 2003 (7)
SCALE 171)
In any event, the modern trend also points to judicial restraint in
administration action as has been held in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India
[(1994) 6 SCC 651], Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner,
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Others [(2000) 5 SCC 287], W.B.
State Electricity Board Vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and Others [(2001) 2
SCC 451] and L.I.C. v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, [AIR
1995 SC 1811].
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
The power of judicial review of High Court as also this Court is now
well-defined in a series of decisions of this Court. It is trite that the court
will not exercise its jurisdiction to entertain a writ application wherein public
law element is not involved. (See Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Escorts
AIR 1986 SC 1370, F.C.I. Vs. Jagannath Dutta, AIR 1993 SC 1494, State
of Gujarat Vs. Meghraj Peth Raj Shah Charitable Trust, (1994) 3 SCC 552,
Assistant Excise Commissioner Vs. Issac Peter, (1994) 4 SCC 104, National
Highway Authority of India Vs. M/s. Ganga Enterprises & Anr. 2003 (7)
SCALE 171)
In any event, the modern trend also points to judicial restraint in
administration action as has been held in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India
[(1994) 6 SCC 651], Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner,
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Others [(2000) 5 SCC 287], W.B.
State Electricity Board Vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and Others [(2001) 2
SCC 451] and L.I.C. v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, [AIR
1995 SC 1811].
Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal ... on 8 May, 2000
The power of judicial review of High Court as also this Court is now
well-defined in a series of decisions of this Court. It is trite that the court
will not exercise its jurisdiction to entertain a writ application wherein public
law element is not involved. (See Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Escorts
AIR 1986 SC 1370, F.C.I. Vs. Jagannath Dutta, AIR 1993 SC 1494, State
of Gujarat Vs. Meghraj Peth Raj Shah Charitable Trust, (1994) 3 SCC 552,
Assistant Excise Commissioner Vs. Issac Peter, (1994) 4 SCC 104, National
Highway Authority of India Vs. M/s. Ganga Enterprises & Anr. 2003 (7)
SCALE 171)
In any event, the modern trend also points to judicial restraint in
administration action as has been held in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India
[(1994) 6 SCC 651], Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner,
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Others [(2000) 5 SCC 287], W.B.
State Electricity Board Vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and Others [(2001) 2
SCC 451] and L.I.C. v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, [AIR
1995 SC 1811].