Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (1.19 seconds)Section 4 in The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) vs Raj Narain & Anr on 24 June, 1975
In the case of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi versus Shri
Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299, interpreting the
constitutional provisions, Mathew J., in so far as the
relevant aspect in the present case is concerned, stated
thus:
"278. According to the historic analysis, the essence of the
distinction between legislative power and judicial power is
that the legislature makes new law which becomes binding
on all persons over whom the legislature, exercises
legislative power; the judicature applies already existing
law in the resolution of disputes between particular parties
and Judges may not deviate from this duty. This view of the
distinction between the obligation to apply and enforce
rules and a discretion to modify rules or make new rules
was at one time applied uncompromisingly in describing
functions as legislative or judicial. Thus, De Lolme said
that courts of equity as then existing in England had a
legislative function. They are, he said, a kind of inferior
experimental legislature, continually employed in finding
out and providing law remedies for those new species of
cases for which neither the courts of common law, nor the
legislature have as yet found it convenient or practicable to
establish any.3 Though this would show that neither for
logic nor in language has the boundary between legislation
and adjudication ever been rigidly and clearly drawn, the
distinction between the two is well established.
Cellular Operators Association Of ... vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India ... on 11 May, 2016
In so far as the transparency and openness in
governance is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of
Cellular Operators Association of India and others versus
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others, (2016) 7
SCC 703 stated thus:
"82.
Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Chief Executive Officer, Noida & Ors. ... on 29 April, 2014
In fact, a judgment of the Court of Appeal in England,
being R v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p
Coughlan, puts the meaning of "consultation" rather well
as follows:
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2020 20:15:54 :::HCHP
23
"It is common ground that, whether or not consultation of
.
Gram Panchayat Bassi Sekhan vs State Of Punjab & Others on 4 September, 2008
12 We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioners and have minutely analyzed the
judgment in Jarmal Singh's case (supra), however with due
respect, we are unable to concur with the judgment of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court as the same has been rendered per
incuriam inasmuch as most of earlier division bench judgments of
that very Court i.e. Punjab and Haryana High Court including
Gram Panchayat Bassi Sekhan vs. State of Punjab & ors.,
2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 242, CWP No. 3705/2007, titled as
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2020 20:15:54 :::HCHP
28
Inderjit Singh & ors. vs. State of Haryana &ors., decided on
.
Gram Panchayat Village Mann vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 26 August, 2011
13 In addition to the aforesaid judgments, judgment in
Jarmal Singh's case (supra) runs contrary to the judgment of the
Division Bench of that Court in CWP No. 1725/2008, titled as
Gram Panchayat Mann Majra vs. State of Punjab & ors. Dated
2.4.2012, which in turn, has been repeatedly followed by, not
only Punjab and Haryana High Court, but has also been followed
by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gyan Prakash Patel vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh, 2018(2) MPLJ 574.
Sharda Prasad Gautam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2017
13 In addition to the aforesaid judgments, judgment in
Jarmal Singh's case (supra) runs contrary to the judgment of the
Division Bench of that Court in CWP No. 1725/2008, titled as
Gram Panchayat Mann Majra vs. State of Punjab & ors. Dated
2.4.2012, which in turn, has been repeatedly followed by, not
only Punjab and Haryana High Court, but has also been followed
by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gyan Prakash Patel vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh, 2018(2) MPLJ 574.