Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.04 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
K.K. Saksena vs International Commission Of ... on 25 February, 2015
8. The Supreme Court, in its recent opinion reported as
2015 (4) SCC 670 K.K. Saxena Vs. Iternational
Commission on Irrigation and Drainage has while
considering the law on the subject including the judgment
relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the
case of Zee Telefilms Ltd and Anr. (supra) was of the view
that a writ cannot lie, if rights are purely of a private
character without any public law element.
Binny Ltd. & Anr vs V. Sadasivan & Ors on 8 August, 2005
8. The Supreme Court, in its recent opinion reported as
2015 (4) SCC 670 K.K. Saxena Vs. Iternational
Commission on Irrigation and Drainage has while
considering the law on the subject including the judgment
relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the
case of Zee Telefilms Ltd and Anr. (supra) was of the view
that a writ cannot lie, if rights are purely of a private
character without any public law element.
The Banking Regulation Act, 1949
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
In fact Brij Bhushan
Gupta was premised on the definition of State as
laid down in Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib (1981) 1
SCC 722 which itself has been reconsidered in
Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra) which has held that
the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia are not rigid."
Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology & ... on 16 April, 2002
In fact Brij Bhushan
Gupta was premised on the definition of State as
laid down in Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib (1981) 1
SCC 722 which itself has been reconsidered in
Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra) which has held that
the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia are not rigid."
Federal Bank Ltd vs Sagar Thomas & Ors on 26 September, 2003
11. The Supreme Court has also noted its observation in
Federal Bank Ltd. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has
stated that "such a private body who either runs
substantially on State funding or discharging public duty
or positive obligation of public nature or a person or a
body under liability to discharge any function under any
Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory
function".
Ramesh Ahluwalia vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 13 September, 2012
25 A similar view was taken in Ramesh Ahluwalia v
State of Punjab5, where a two judge Bench of this
Court held that a private body can be held to be
amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 when it performs public functions which
are normally expected to be performed by the State
or its authorities.