Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
"25. Therefore, Mr Chinai was right in contending that every action/activity of the Bombay Port Trust which constituted State within Article 12 of the Constitution, in respect of any right conferred or privilege granted by any statute is subject to Article 14 and must be reasonable and taken only upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest.' Reliance may be placed on the observations of this-Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.7; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India8, R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India9, Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K10 and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi11. Where there is arbitrariness in State action, Article 14 springs in and judicial review strikes such an action down. Every action of the executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reason. So, whatever be the activity of the public authority, it should meet the test of Article 14. The observations in paras 101 and 102 of the Escorts case4 read properly do not detract from the aforesaid principles."
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
The Supreme Court, in Tata Cellular case, has held that it was obliged to interfere on the ground of arbitrariness and violation of principles of natural justice, confining itself to the doctrine of judicial restraint, however, by the application of permissible parameters to set right the decision-making process. In this case, in the absence of any arbitrariness in the action of the respondents or violation of principles of natural justice, this Court is not inclined to countenance the prayer sought for by the petitioner.
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
"25. Therefore, Mr Chinai was right in contending that every action/activity of the Bombay Port Trust which constituted State within Article 12 of the Constitution, in respect of any right conferred or privilege granted by any statute is subject to Article 14 and must be reasonable and taken only upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest.' Reliance may be placed on the observations of this-Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.7; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India8, R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India9, Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K10 and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi11. Where there is arbitrariness in State action, Article 14 springs in and judicial review strikes such an action down. Every action of the executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reason. So, whatever be the activity of the public authority, it should meet the test of Article 14. The observations in paras 101 and 102 of the Escorts case4 read properly do not detract from the aforesaid principles."
New Horizons Ltd vs Union Of India on 9 November, 1994
(iii) New Horizons Limited v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478 :