Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)Section 16 in Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act 1966 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act 1966 [Entire Act]
Om Narain Agarwal And Ors. Etc vs Nagar Palika Shahjahanpur And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1993
22. The doctrine of "pleasure" came up for consideration
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Narain
Agarwal Vs. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur (1993 AIR
(SCW) 1254). In the said case two women members had been
nominated on the pleasure and subjective satisfaction of the
State Government. The Supreme Court has made the
following observations on the pleasure doctrine at page No.
1263, which reads as under:
Khusro Quraishi vs State Of Karnataka on 8 March, 2012
In so far as the doctrine of pleasure is concerned, the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khusro Quraishi
V. State of Karnataka and Others (2012 (5) Kar. L.J. 116
(DB)) wherein it is observed as under:
Section 21 in Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act 1966 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act 1966 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar vs M. Venkitachalam Potti And ... on 20 December, 1955
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
decision in A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M.
Venkitachalam Potti (1955) 2 SCR 1196; AIR 1956 SC
246; (1956) 29 ITR 349 to contend that, the statement of
objects and reasons was used for judging the reasonableness
of a classification made in an enactment to see if it is
8
infringed or was contrary to the Constitution.