Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 162 (0.76 seconds)
Smt. Kesari Devi W/O Shri Gulab Singh, ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 18 August, 2005
cites
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others vs Babu Ram Upadhya on 25 November, 1960
In Rubber House v. Excellsior Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd., , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1976, which provided for mentioning the amount of arrears of rent in the application and after placing reliance upon large number of judgments, including Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, ; Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd (supra); K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar, ; Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, ; State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya (supra); and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, , the provision was held to be directory though the word "shall" has been used in the statutory provision for the reason that non-compliance of the rule, i.e. non-mentioning of the quantum of arrears of rent did involve no invalidating consequence and also did not visit any penalty.
Dr. (Mrs.) Meera Massey Dr. Abha ... vs Dr. S.R. Mehrotra And Ors on 3 February, 1998
In Dr. Meera Massey v. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra and Ors., , the Apex Court observed as under: -
The Representation Of The People Act, 1950
U.P.S.R.T.C. And Ors. vs Ram Chandra Yadav on 5 May, 2000
115. During the course of enquiry, every document which is being relied upon by the Department and by the Inquiry Officer to record a finding must be supplied to the delinquent failing which the inquiry would not be in accordance with law and the authority must act in good faith otherwise the proceedings would stand vitiated (State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and Anr., ; and U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. v. Ram Chandra Yadav, ).
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947
Sirsi Municipality By Its President ... vs Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis on 18 January, 1973
129. Power vested by the State in a Public Authority should be viewed as in trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and fact -situation of a case. "Public Authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them". Decision taken in arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. Authority is under legal obligation to exercise the power reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred. In this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate reasons". It must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other. (Vide Sirsi Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, ; The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Gurdial Singh and Ors., ; The Collector (Distt Magistrate) Allahabad and Anr. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, ; and Delhi Administration v. Manohar Lal, . In such a case, authority has to satisfy that it has acted reasonably in a fair and just manner and whatever the statutory mandate requires must be honoured by the State. No deviation of the requirement of the procedure is permissible if the statute provides for severe consequence. Undoubtedly, the interest of the State is supreme but every action of the State must be right, just and fair.
State Of Mysore & Ors vs V. K. Kangan & Ors on 21 August, 1975
74. Similar view has been reiterated in Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. Private Ltd. and Anr v. The Employees Estate Insurance Corporation, ; State of Mysore and Ors. v. V.K. Kangan and Ors., ; Govind Lal Chaggan Lal Patel v. The Agriculture Produce Market Committee and Ors., ; Dalchand v. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal and Anr,, ; Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and Anr. v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, ; B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick and Anr., ; Owners and Parties Interested in M.V. "Vali Pero" v. Fernandeo Lopez and Ors., ; Lakshmanasami Gounder v. C.I.T., Selvarnani and Ors., ; Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, ; Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd., ; Dinkar Anna Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., ; Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh, ; Balwant Singh and Ors. v. Anand Kumar Sharma and Ors., ; Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., ; and Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors., ).