Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Section 26 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Madan Lal & Ors vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors on 6 February, 1995
In the case of Madan Lal v/s State of Jammu and
Kashmir, [(1995) 3 SCC 486] this principle has been clearly
elucidated by the Apex Court in Para 8 as under:
Nazir Ahmad vs Emperor (No. 2) on 16 June, 1936
Hence, when a statute
requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must
be done in that manner or not at all and other methods of
performance are necessarily forbidden, vide Nazir Ahmed vs.
King Emperor (1936) L.R. 63 I.A. 372 .
Kameng Dolo vs Atum Welly on 9 May, 2017
(iii) In Kameng Dolo vs. Atum Welly AIR 2017 SC 2859,
election of an unopposed candidate was declared as invalid
on the ground that the nomination of his opponent was not
withdrawn as per the procedure statutorily mandated. That
the nomination of the opposite candidate ought to have been
withdrawn in the manner provided for under the relevant
statute and withdrawing the same in any other manner was
necessarily forbidden. That withdrawal of the nomination,
not carried out in accordance with the procedure established
under the relevant statute, enabled the successful candidate
to win unopposed. Hence, his election was declared as void.
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958
Union Of India & Anr vs Charanjit S. Gill & Ors on 24 April, 2000
(v) It may also be apposite to refer to the decision of this
Court in Union of India vs. Charanjit S. Gill (2000) 5 SCC
742, wherein this Court held that any provisions introduced
by way of "Notes" appended to the Sections of the Army
Act, 1950, could not be read as a part of the Act and
therefore such notes could not take away any right vested
under the said Act. It was observed that issuance of an
administrative order or a "Note" pertaining to a special type
of weapon to bring it within the ambit of the Army Act,
which was hitherto not included therein, could not be said to
have been included in the manner in which it was supposed
to be included. That the Army Act empowers the Central
Page 21 of 26
Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 20:36:30 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24873/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2024
undefined
Government to make rules and regulations for carrying into
effect the provisions of the Act; however, no power is
conferred upon the Central Government of issuing "Notes"
Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
In the case of
Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR
1986 SC 1043, it has been clearly laid down by a
Bench of three learned Judges of this Court then when
the petitioners appeared at the examination without
protest and when he found that he would not succeed
in examination he filed a petition challenging the said
examination, the High Court should not have granted
any relief to such a petitioner."
The Parbhani Transport Co-Operative ... vs The Regional Transport ... on 7 March, 1960
(i) Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. The
Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad (1960) (3)
S.C.R. 177: AIR 1960 SC 801 , wherein it was observed
that the rule provides that an expressly laid down mode of
doing something necessarily implies a prohibition of doing it
in any other way.
Dipak Babaria & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 23 January, 2014
(ii) In Dipak Babaria vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2014 SC
Page 20 of 26
Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 20:36:30 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/24873/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2024
undefined
1972 , this Court set aside the sale of agricultural land, on the
ground that the sale was not in compliance with the statutory
procedure prescribed in that regard under the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act,
1958. The matter was examined on the anvil of the
aforestated maxim and it was held that alienation of
agricultural land by adopting any alternate procedure to the
one prescribed under the Act, was necessarily forbidden.