Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.31 seconds)United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947
Section 3 in United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dadu @ Tulsidas vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 October, 2000
The second relief sought in the writ petition is against the
Union of India. The prayer is that the Union should take action
to fulfil clause 6 of the March agreement. The prayer is
unsustainable as in substance the relief claimed is against
ICRISAT. Furthermore It is doubtful whether the agreement
between the Indian Government and ICRISAT is specifically
enforceable as such in domestic Courts, particularly when the
agreement does not form part of any domestic legislation. The
case of Dadu V. State of Maharashtra relied upon by the
appellant has no bearing on the issues which arise for
consideration in the case before us. In that case, the
Constitutional validity of Section 32A of the Narcotics Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which prohibited
appellate Courts from suspending sentence despite the appeal
being admitted, was questioned. The impugned section clearly
ran contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code
which allowed the appellate courts discretionary powers to
suspend sentences. One of the arguments raised by the
Respondent State to justify this apparent contradiction was that
the section had been enacted in discharge of the Government
of India's international obligations under the United Nations
Convention Against Illicit Trafficking in Narcotics and
Psychotropic, 1988. The Court held that the Convention clearly
and unambiguously showed that the Convention was made
subject to "constitutional principles and the basic concept of its
legal system prevalent in the polity of the member country".
Vidya Ram Mishra vs Managing Committee, Shri Jai Narain ... on 31 January, 1972
[V.R. Mishra v. Managing Committee, Jai
Narain College, (1972) 1 SCC 623] ICRISAT is certainly not a
statutory body nor its activities are mandated by a statute.
Nain Sukh Das And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 22 May, 1953
The scope of a remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution is wider that the remedy under Article 32 since the
latter "is restricted solely to enforcement of fundamental rights
conferred by Part III of the Constitution". Nain Sukh Das V.
State of Uttar Pradesh 1953 SCR 1184 at 1186.
The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963
Even where Article 226 is clearly available, nevertheless
this Court has normally not interfered in academic matters
regarding equivalence to the University degrees for the
selection of candidates for academic posts. (University of
Mysore V. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491)
Common law liability of an employer towards his
employee has been subjected to statutory limitations under
labour laws enacted in this country and the Constitution in so
far as particular employees are concerned. In respect of those
employees who do not fall in either of these categories the
common law principle has to operate.