Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.51 seconds)
Karan Mahajan And Ors. vs Board Of Control For Cricket In India & ... on 21 February, 2019 cites

Board Of Control For Cricket In India vs Cricket Association Of Bihar . on 29 September, 2015

11. Mr Aditya Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner persuasively submitted that several wards of railway employees had achieved significant accomplishment in the sport of W.P.(C) 9484/2018 Page 4 of 12 cricket and had proceeded to represent India in international cricket. He further submitted that the railways had a long history of nurturing talent in the sport of cricket in India and this was also noted by the Supreme Court in its decision in Board of Control for Cricket in India and Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.: JT 2018 (8) SC 65. He drew the attention of this Court to paragraph 11 of the said decision, which notes the names of the several famous international cricketers who had played for Indian Railways. He pointed out that some of the names mentioned therein had played cricket as wards of Railway employees. He submitted that in view of the longstanding history of the contribution of RSPB and contribution of wards of employees of the Indian Railways, the decision of the BCCI to not permit them to participate in the teams fielded by RSPB was arbitrary and unreasonable. He submitted the same also militates against the very objective of the BCCI to nurture and promote cricket in India.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

South Malabar Gramin Bank vs Co-Ordination Committee Of South ... on 31 January, 2001

14. He submitted that the decision of the BCCI to exclude wards of employees from participating in the team on account of ensuring parity with the services was also irrational. He submitted that parity should be achieved by providing better facility to the disadvantaged class and not to deprive any class of benefits already provided. He submitted that if the Railways were to be brought at parity with the services, the wards of persons serving in the Indian services, should also be permitted to participate in teams fielded by the Services. However, it would be unreasonable to deprive the wards of Railway employees on this ground. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank v. Coordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees' Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank Officers' Federation and Others: (2001) 4 SCC 101.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 49 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Federation Of Railway Officers ... vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2003

"20. Minimal interference is called for by the Courts, in exercise of judicial review of a Government policy when the said policy is the outcome of deliberations of the technical experts in the fields inasmuch as Courts are not well-equipped to fathom into such domain which is left to the discretion of the execution. It was beautifully explained by the Court in Narmada BachaoAndolan v. Union of India MANU/SC/0640/2000 : (2000) 10 SCC 664 and reiterated in Federation of Railway Officers Assn. v. Union of India MANU/SC/0231/2003 : (2003) 4 SCC 289 in the following words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 242 - Full Document
1