Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (1.72 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Maharashtra vs Indian Medical Association & Ors on 6 December, 2001
In State of Maharashtra Vs. Association of Court Stenos, P.A., P.S.
and Another [(2002) 2 SCC 141], Pattanaik, J. (as the learned Chief Justice
then was) noticed this Court's earlier decision in Supreme Court Employees'
Welfare Asson. V. Union of India [(1989) 4 SCC 187] and stated the law in
the following terms:
A.K. Gulati And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 7 May, 1991
The claim for higher scales of pay for Class II and Class I officers
indisputably was made in view of the decisions of Delhi High Court in A.K.
Gulati and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [1991 (44) DLT 590] and Shri
Madan Lal Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court and Others [1992 (46) DLT
133].
State Of U.P. And Anr vs Johri Mal on 21 April, 2004
The scope of judicial review has also been considered recently by this
Court State of U.P. and another Vs. Johri Mal [AIR 2004 SC 3800] wherein
it was opined:
Union Of India And Anr vs S.B. Vohra And Ors on 5 January, 2004
For our purpose, it is not necessary to refer to a large number of
decisions on this question as the matter has been considered by a 3-Judge
Bench of this Court in Union of India and Another Vs. S.B. Vohra and
Others [(2004) 2 SCC 150] wherein, one of us (S.B. Sinha, J.), speaking for
the Bench opined that judicial review lies inter alia when public law element
is involved and the question as to whether public law remedy enforceable
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available or not is required
to be determined in each case. It was held:
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Shri P.D. Attri And Others on 11 February, 1999
In State of H.P. Vs. P.D. Attri and Others [(1999) 3 SCC 217], it is
stated:
Madan Lal vs Registrar, Delhi High Court And Ors. on 4 November, 1991
The claim for higher scales of pay for Class II and Class I officers
indisputably was made in view of the decisions of Delhi High Court in A.K.
Gulati and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [1991 (44) DLT 590] and Shri
Madan Lal Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court and Others [1992 (46) DLT
133].
Union Of India vs Kishan K. Sharma & Ors on 5 January, 2004
In this case, our attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in
Union of India Vs. Kishan K. Sharma and Others [(2004) 2 SCC 173]
wherein this Court despite holding that the High Court was not correct in
issuing a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Central
Government to pay a scale of Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from 1.1.1986 in
favour of the Respondents, did not interfere in the matter considering the
same to be old one and having regard to the fact that the direction of the
High Court had already acted upon. Such is not the position here.
1