Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.32 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 64 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Indian Easements Act, 1882
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mulamchand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 1968
The provisions of Article 299(1) of
the Constitutions are mandatory in character and
as the Supreme Court has held, the contravention
of the provisions of Article 299(1) nullifies the
contracts and renders them void {see the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Mulamchand v. State of
Madhya Pradesh {AIR 1968 SC 1218}. It is not
open even to the Government to dispense with the
requirements under Article 299.
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd vs Indure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 9 February, 1996
a duly competent officer. The doctrine of indoor
management cannot be extended to formation of the
contract under Article 299 U.P.Rajkiya Nirman
Nigam Ltd. v. Indure Pvt. Ltd {AIR 1996 SC 1373}.
The contention of Mr.Thampan that the conditions
under Article 299 cannot be diluted and a signed
licence deed, in which the Governor represented by
a competent authority and the members of the golf
club have subscribed their signature, is a pre-
requisite for the petitioner to assert the status
of a licensee and also claim the limited rights,
otherwise flowing in their behalf deserves to be
accepted.
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Maddula Ratnavalli & Ors on 27 April, 2007
court declines jurisdiction where it finds that
disputed facts require adjudication; and the
relief sought for by the party who impugns the
State action would essentially be in the nature of
damages. But the courts also would be reluctant
to exercise jurisdiction where the ultimate relief
sought for by the party is essentially in the
nature of specific performance of an agreement.
But, illegality, impropriety, irrationality and
unreasonableness in State action could always be
the subject matter of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is
the law. Essentially, such judicial review be to
consider whether the action taken by the State is
fair and reasonable so as to pass muster on the
touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. This is how the Supreme Court has evolved
the parameters of judicial review that is not only
possible but also desirable under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India {Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. v. Maddula Ratnavalli [2007(6)
SCC 81], Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
v.Darius Shapur, Chennai [2006(1) KLT 230 (SC)],
Maharashtra Distilleries v. State of Kerala {2003
W.P.(C) No.16260 of 2008 & con. cases
:: 28 ::
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
K. P. Chowdhary vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 15 March, 1966
(ii) K.P.Chowdhry v. State of M.P. {AIR 1967
SC 203},