Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.38 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Air Corporations Act, 1953
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mr.R.S.Madireddy, S/O Mr. Kotyswara ... vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 20 September, 2022
11. Adverting to the primary argument canvassed by the learned
counsel for the Appellant, it is pertinent to note that the facts in R.S.
Madireddy & Anr. (supra) were very similar to the facts in the present
case, insofar as they relate to an employer-employee dispute and also
the fact that the Appellants therein were persons who had been
employed by the Airline in the late 1980s.
Federation Of Tata Communications ... vs Union Of India And Others on 3 July, 2009
He would
also rely upon certain other judgments passed by this Court in
Federation of Tata Communications Employees Unions v. Union of
India4, Naresh Kumar Beri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors5 and the
judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in M. Yogeshwar Raj
v. Air India Ltd6.
Naresh Kumar Beri & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 31 October, 2022
29. It is thus, seen that various High Courts across the country
have taken a consistent view over a period of time on the pertinent
question presented for consideration that the subsequent event i.e.
the disinvestment of the Government company and its devolution
into a private company would make the company immune from
being subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, even if the litigant had entered the portals of
the Court while the employer was the Government. The only
exception is the solitary judgment of the Division Bench of
Calcutta High Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta (supra), which was
distinguished by the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High
Court in the case of Kalpana Yogesh Dhagat (supra) and rightly so,
in our opinion, we have no hesitation in holding that the view taken
in the judgments of Kalpana Yogesh Dhagat (supra) (by the High
Court of Gujarat); Asulal Loya (supra)(by the High Court of Delhi)
and Tarun Kumar Banerjee (supra)(by the High Court of Bombay)
is the correct exposition on this legal issue and we grant full
imprimatur to the said proposition of law.
Federal Bank Ltd vs Sagar Thomas & Ors on 26 September, 2003
"18. From the decisions referred to above, the position
that emerges is that a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i)
the State (Government); (ii) an authority; (iii) a statutory
body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v.) a
company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a
private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a
private body discharging public duty or positive obligation
of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under
liability to discharge any function under any statute, to
compel it to perform such a statutory function."