Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (1.32 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
3. Since all the relevant material including reasoning for rejection of petitioner's claim is already on record, the petition as such is being decided at the admission stage itself without calling for counter affidavit particularly in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & others versus Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & others, reported in AIR 1978 SC page 851 whereby reasons are required to be indicated and construed from the impugned order itself and can not be supplemented by any affidavit.
Kusum Lata Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 25 July, 2022
8. Learned counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment rendered by Division Bench of this court in the case of Kusum Lata Yadav and others versus State of U.P. and others, writ C No. 28249 of 2021 wherein also this court has deprecated the yardstick of 30 days as indicated in the government order dated Ist June, 2021 primarily on the ground that provisions are beneficial in nature and full extent of such a beneficial provision is required to be granted.
The Bangalore Turf Club Limited vs The Regional Director, Employees' ... on 4 September, 2002
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Turf Club Limited versus Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation along with connected civil appeals reported in (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 657 has already held that in cases of beneficial statutes or provisions, expansive and not a restrictive definition is required to be given for ensuring the purpose for which the beneficial statute or provision has been enacted or notified. Consequently, any limitation or provision which not only restricts but makes a beneficial provision redundant has to be abjured.
1