Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.35 seconds)
Builders Association Of India vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2024 cites

Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 August, 1986

Generally, the legality of public- private arrangements through contracts made by an executive is ensured through the principles of executive accountability to the public and the Constitution. The relationship between the public and private sectors is normally assessed through the scale of accountability, premised to eschew arbitrariness. However, in this case, an argument has been raised that the executive has no power to curtail the fundamental right to engage in contract through executive orders, except through the plenary power of the legislation. Shri Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel for the appellants and for some of the petitioners relied on the following judgments: Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala [(1986) 3 SCC 615] paras.9 to 14, 16 and 17; K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, [(2019) WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:20:- 1 SCC 1] para.270.6, 498-504; Raju Sebastian and Others v. Union of India and Others [2019 (4) KHC 615] para.12 and 13 and 20; and Bishambar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of UP[(1982) 1 SCC 39]; to argue that executive instructions or order cannot curtail fundamental rights. He submitted that in the absence of law enacted by the Legislature, such restrictions cannot be imposed on fundamental rights.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 116 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018

Generally, the legality of public- private arrangements through contracts made by an executive is ensured through the principles of executive accountability to the public and the Constitution. The relationship between the public and private sectors is normally assessed through the scale of accountability, premised to eschew arbitrariness. However, in this case, an argument has been raised that the executive has no power to curtail the fundamental right to engage in contract through executive orders, except through the plenary power of the legislation. Shri Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel for the appellants and for some of the petitioners relied on the following judgments: Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala [(1986) 3 SCC 615] paras.9 to 14, 16 and 17; K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, [(2019) WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:20:- 1 SCC 1] para.270.6, 498-504; Raju Sebastian and Others v. Union of India and Others [2019 (4) KHC 615] para.12 and 13 and 20; and Bishambar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of UP[(1982) 1 SCC 39]; to argue that executive instructions or order cannot curtail fundamental rights. He submitted that in the absence of law enacted by the Legislature, such restrictions cannot be imposed on fundamental rights.
Supreme Court of India Cites 661 - Cited by 238 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan And ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 1981

Generally, the legality of public- private arrangements through contracts made by an executive is ensured through the principles of executive accountability to the public and the Constitution. The relationship between the public and private sectors is normally assessed through the scale of accountability, premised to eschew arbitrariness. However, in this case, an argument has been raised that the executive has no power to curtail the fundamental right to engage in contract through executive orders, except through the plenary power of the legislation. Shri Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel for the appellants and for some of the petitioners relied on the following judgments: Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala [(1986) 3 SCC 615] paras.9 to 14, 16 and 17; K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, [(2019) WA No.44/2021 and connected cases -:20:- 1 SCC 1] para.270.6, 498-504; Raju Sebastian and Others v. Union of India and Others [2019 (4) KHC 615] para.12 and 13 and 20; and Bishambar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of UP[(1982) 1 SCC 39]; to argue that executive instructions or order cannot curtail fundamental rights. He submitted that in the absence of law enacted by the Legislature, such restrictions cannot be imposed on fundamental rights.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 358 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 Next