Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.34 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
Section 35 in The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 45NB in The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui Etc, Mohd. Aslam, ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 October, 1994
In the case of Mohd. Aslam (supra), this Court held that
Article 32 of the Constitution was not available to assail the
correctness of a decision on merits or to claim reconsideration.
Union Of India And Ors vs Major S.P. Sharma And Ors on 6 March, 2014
Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Major
S.P. Sharma and others (supra) is concerned, in the said
case, the first round of litigation arising out of termination of
respondentemployee had reached finality upto this Court.
17 (1996) 1 SCC 169
18 (1994) 3 SCC 1
18
However, the same was sought to be reopened by filing another
writ petition before the High Court. In this background, this
Court observed thus:
Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra & Anr on 10 April, 2002
36. After referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of
Rupa Ashok Hurra (supra), this Court has held that it does
not lay down a proposition that the ratio decidendi of an earlier
decision cannot be examined or differed with in another case.
31
It has been held that if the Court is satisfied that the issue
raised in the later petition requires consideration and in that
context, the earlier decision requires reexamination, the Court
can certainly proceed to examine the matter or refer the matter
to a larger Bench, if the earlier decision is not of a smaller
Bench. This Court, therefore, specifically rejected the
contention that a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution was barred or not maintainable with reference to
an issue which was the subject matter of an earlier decision.
Chief Information Commissioner vs High Court Of Gujarat on 4 March, 2020
13. It is submitted that Section 11 of the RTI Act provides that
when any information relating to third party has been sought, a
written notice is required to be given to such third party of the
request, by the Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, and the
submissions by such third party are required to be taken into
consideration while taking a decision about the disclosure of
the information. Reliance in this respect has been placed on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Chief Information
Commissioner vs. High Court of Gujarat and another 10.