Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Union Of India & Ors vs J.D.Suryavanshi on 5 September, 2011
8.2. Additionally, a decision which has been delivered by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. J.D. Suryavanshi reported in
(2011) 13 SCC 167, the observations contained in para 11 and 12 are also
significant. Hence, the Court deems it proper to reproduce hereunder :-
G.Sundarrajan vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2013
8.4. Yet further decision which is emphasized and relied upon by
learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi in the case of G.
Sundarrajan v. Union of India reported in (2013) 6 SCC 620 in which,
the observations contained in para 238 and 240 since are somewhat
relevant to the present order, the Court deems it proper to reproduce para
240 hereunder :-
Md.Murtaza & Ors vs State Of Assam & Ors on 29 August, 2011
8.1. So far as the decision in the case of Mohd. Murtaza & Ors., v.
State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 413, is concerned, the
relevant extract contained in para 11,12, 13 deserves consideration,
hence, reproduced hereunder :-
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982
In
adjudging the validity of the restriction the Court has necessarily
to approach the question from the point of view of the social
interest which the State action intends to promote, vide Puthumma
v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771; P.P. Enterprises v. Union of
India, AIR 1982 SC 1016 and Jyoti Pershad v. Union Territory of
Delhi (supra), etc.
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & ... vs Chander Hass & Anr on 6 December, 2007
C/SCA/8339/2019 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/07/2021
8.3. Yet another decision relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Mr.
Kamal Trivedi in the case of Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club &
Anr., v. Chander Hass & Anr., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 683 in which
the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court have been taken into
consideration but with a view to avoid over burdening of the present
order, the Court deems it proper not to reproduce the same..