Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
Kulvir Singh vs Union Of India And Anr on 17 December, 2014 cites

M/S Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 August, 2011

13. Before concluding, it would also be necessary to consider the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent appearing in W.P.(C) 4574/2014. He contended that invoking the jurisdiction of this Court by the petitioner was mala fide. He submitted that the passport officer as well as the petitioner were in Punjab and the present petition had been filed only because the petitioner perceived that no relief would be granted by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. He also referred to the full Bench decision of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. V. Union of India & Ors.: 2011 (124) DRJ 633 (FB) and submitted that exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary ought not to exercise in favour of the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 135 - V Sen - Full Document

Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport ... on 10 April, 1967

5. At the outset, it is necessary to examine the nature of the rights that are sought to be curtailed. The Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Govenment of India, New Delhi and Ors.: AIR 1967 SC 1836 had examined the right of a citizen to travel aboard and held that this was a part of the fundamental rights guaranteed to a citizen and deprivation of such right would violate Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is relevant to note that at the material time the Passport Act, 1967 had not been enacted. Subsequently, the Passport Act, 1967 was enacted to provide the law under which a citizen's right could be curtailed. This was also clearly spelt out by the 'Statement of objects and reasons' of the Act which reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 188 - K S Rao - Full Document

Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978

- were again examined by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: 1978 (1) SCC 248. Section 10(3)(c) of the Act enabled the Passport Authorities to impound or revoke the passport or travel documents "in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interest of the general public". The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the said Section, however, held that, that did not mean that any order made under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act would not violate Article 19(1)(a) or (g) of the Constitution of India. It was explained that even where statutory provisions empowering an authority to take an action are constitutionally valid, the action itself may offend a fundamental right. P.N. Bhagwati, J speaking for the majority stated the above principle in the following words:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 126 - Cited by 1969 - M H Beg - Full Document
1   2 Next