Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & ... vs Chander Hass & Anr on 6 December, 2007 cites

Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Workman, Indian Drugs & ... on 16 November, 2006

18. Judges must exercise judicial restraint and must not encroach into the executive or legislative domain vide Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. The Workman of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408 and S.C. Chandra and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. JT 2007 (10) 4 SC 272 (See concurring judgment of M. Katju, J.).
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 613 - M Katju - Full Document

Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994

In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11 (vide paragraph 113) this Court observed that the modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The same view has been taken in a large number of other decisions also, but it is unfortunate that many courts are not following these decisions and are trying to perform legislative or executive functions. In our opinion adjudication must be done within the system of historically validated restraints and conscious minimization of the Judges preferences. The Court must not embarrass the administrative authorities and must realize that administrative authorities have expertise in the field of administration while the Court does not. In the word of Chief Justice Neely:
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 3275 - S Mohan - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr vs Deoki Nandan Aggarwal on 4 September, 1991

27. For instance, the Delhi High Court directed that there can be no interview of children for admissions in nursery schools. There is no statute or statutory rule which prohibits such interviews. Hence the Delhi High Court has by a judicial order first created a law (which was wholly beyond its jurisdiction) and has then sought to enforce it. This is clearly illegal, for Judges cannot legislate vide Union of India vs. Deoki Nandan Agarwal, AIR 1992 SC 96.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 430 - Full Document

Rajindera Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. & ... vs Prem Mai And Others on 23 August, 2007

30. The justification often given for judicial encroachment into the domain of the executive or legislature is that the other two organs are not doing their jobs properly. Even assuming this is so, the same allegation can then be made against the judiciary too because there are cases pending in Courts for half-a-century as pointed out by this Court in Rajindera Singh vs. Prem Mai & others (Civil Appeal No. 1307/2001) decided on 23 August, 2007.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1