Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.14 seconds)Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969
Prakasini vs Joint Registrar on 5 December, 2005
Initially, he has contended that in terms of Section 69 of
W.P.(C). No. 31264/2014 -9-
the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969, (`the Act' for brevity) the
petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy as has been clearly
established by this Court in Prakasini v. Joint Registrar3 and
Raveendran v. State of Kerala4. In furtherance of the submissions
made by Sri. Elvin Peter P.J., the learned counsel for the additional 9th
respondent, he has also submitted that despite the amendment to
Rule 185 on 28.04.1999, until 2011 either this Court or the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had kept in abeyance the operation of the amended
provision. Under those circumstances, the respondent Bank did not
have any other option than following the then existing statutory
provisions concerning either the recruitment or promotions.
Nhaliyan Makkil Raveendran vs State Of Kerala on 5 May, 2008
Initially, he has contended that in terms of Section 69 of
W.P.(C). No. 31264/2014 -9-
the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969, (`the Act' for brevity) the
petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy as has been clearly
established by this Court in Prakasini v. Joint Registrar3 and
Raveendran v. State of Kerala4. In furtherance of the submissions
made by Sri. Elvin Peter P.J., the learned counsel for the additional 9th
respondent, he has also submitted that despite the amendment to
Rule 185 on 28.04.1999, until 2011 either this Court or the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had kept in abeyance the operation of the amended
provision. Under those circumstances, the respondent Bank did not
have any other option than following the then existing statutory
provisions concerning either the recruitment or promotions.
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
45. At the cost of repetition it is to be averred that the efficacy
and even the existence of the sub-rules or regulations is coterminous
with the substantive rule in the context of delegation and sub-
delegation. It does not, going by settled principles of law, admit of
any controversy that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not
have any application to sub-ordinate legislation. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sushil Ansal v. State5, has observed that Section 6
of the General Clauses Act does not have any application to, for
instance, a rule, a notification or a circular whether statutory or
otherwise. It is confined to repeal of any enactment already in
existence or made after the enactment of the General Clauses Act,
1897.
Union Of India vs Amrit Lal Manchanda And Anr on 16 February, 2004
In Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda6, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held thus:
Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh And Amr vs B. Satyanarayana Rao (Dead) By Lrs. And ... on 5 April, 2000
In Govt. of A.P. v. B. Satyanarayana Rao7, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that a decision by two Judges has a binding
effect on another coordinate Bench of two Judges, unless it is
demonstrated that the said decision by any subsequent change in law
6 (2004) 3 SCC 75
7 (2000) 4 SCC 262
W.P.(C). No. 31264/2014 -29-
or decision ceases to laying down a correct law. In the present
instance it is not in dispute, thus obviating the need of any
demonstration, that there is a change in the law.
Abraham Jacob & Ors vs Union Of India on 11 February, 1998
State of Haryana9 it is held that it is open to the employer (in that
case, the Government) to regulate the service conditions of the
8 (1998) 4 SCC 65
9 (1998) 4 SCC 114
W.P.(C). No. 31264/2014 -32-
employees for whom the rules were made, even if they were in their
draft stage, provided there is a clear intention on the part of the
Government to enforce those Rules in the near future.
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 November, 1980
67. Putting the whole issue in perspective, this Court observes
that the Feeder Category Sub-Rules framed under the unamended
Rule 185 (1) of the Rules do not hold the field concerning the
promotional posts which find exempted from the operation of sub-
rule (1) of the amended Rule 185 of the Rules. Since the effacement of
the Feeder Category Sub-Rules is by way of statutory operation, they
do not require any judicial invalidation. Further, Ext.P8 judgement
cannot be a precedent for an issue arising on application of the
regnant statutory rules, which were not even in existence when the
said judgment was rendered. Indeed, in the light of inapplicability of
Ext.P7 sub-rules, recourse to Ext.R7 (d) Model Recruitment Rules by
the respondent Bank cannot be found fault with.