Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)
Sunil Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 25 August, 2011 cites

State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs M/S Misrilall Jain & Sons And Anr. Etc on 13 April, 2010

By Court We are benefited by the remand order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in these matters reported in (2010) 5 SCC 324 as State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Misrilal Jain & Sons & Anr.. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had remanded these matters, setting aside the judgments passed by this Court in a group of 46 writ petitions which were decided by a common judgment dated 7th May, 2007 and other writ petitions by a Division Bench of this Court by a separate judgment but following the judgment dated 7th May, 2007.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2001

16. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that this is a State policy decision and it is not an effort to amend the Rule and once the policy decision is taken, the Courts are required not to interfere in such matters and the Government cannot remain static in the matter of recovery of the revenue which are natural consequences of the fruits of the properties of the State Government. Learned Counsel for the State relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Balco Employees' Union (regd.) Vs. Union of India & 11 Ors. reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333 and also relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of (1992) Suppl. 3 SCC 217, which was a matter relating to the reservation policy but according to the learned counsel for the State where there is a gap, the State Government can issue Executive Order and if the Executive Order is not running contrary to any statutory Rule or law then that Executive Order cannot be questioned. It is also submitted by learned Advocate General that by notification dated 17th June, 2005 the State Government has only prescribed the manner, in which, the surface rent is to be charged and it has not altered any statutory provision. This argument of learned Advocate General itself supports the view taken by us and it is not a case of filling up of gap or left out area of legislation which is sought to be covered by the impugned Resolution but Resolution is if given effect then it nullify the statutory provision. Neither the Resolution can be termed to be a policy decision and the policy cannot be against clear and unambiguous statutory provision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1192 - Full Document
1