Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 61 (0.96 seconds)
Dr. Devendra Pratap Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India Through Secy. Health And ... on 8 July, 2011 cites

Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. & ... vs C.K. Rajan & Others on 14 August, 2003

In view of discussion made here-in-above, there appears to be no good ground to treat the present writ petition as PIL as it relates to the continuance of service under the NRHM Scheme. While deciding the issue, the Court is not precluded to look into the public interest for the end of justice. Learned Chief Standing Counsel could not take into account earlier judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other full bench while advancing the argument. Apart from above, the judgment of Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and another (supra) has been decided by a Bench consisting of Hon'ble Three Judges of Supreme Court which has been followed in the case of Ashok Lanka (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, submission of learned Chief Standing Counsel does not seem to be sustainable and the nature of writ petition is not substantially changed and the dominant purpose is to maintain the petitioners' continuity in service and the Court is not precluded to look into public interest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 296 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M/S Bajaj Hindustan Ltd vs Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2010

In the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court itself ruled that though ordinarily in administrative action, Court should not interfere but it does not mean that the judiciary should never interfere. The interference should be within narrow limits i.e. when there is violation of statute or constitutional provision or there is arbitrariness in the Wednesbury sense.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 224 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next