Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.24 seconds)Section 21 in The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Indian National Congress (I) vs Institute Of Social Welfare & Ors on 10 May, 2002
25. Section 21 has no application to a certificate since a
certificate is neither a notification, nor an order, or rule or bye- law as
contemplated by that Section. This Court has on several occasions
held that where a statutory authority is enjoined to perform a quasi
judicial function such as that of grant of registration to a political party
or issue a certificate under the Income Tax Act, Section 21 has no
application and confers no power to review such an Act because the
party has violated a provision of the constitution of law, vide Indian
National Congress (I) vs. Institute of Social Welfare 10 and Industrial
10
(2002) 5 SCC 685
19
Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) M.P. Ltd. vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior11.
Industrial Infrastructure ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Gwalior M.P. on 16 February, 2018
30. A similar question arose in Industrial Infrastructure
Development case (supra) where the Commissioner of Income Tax
cancelled a registration certificate because it contained an error
apparent from the record.
Ghaurul Hasan And Others vs The State Of Rajasthan on 5 April, 1961
This Court held that the certificate was
issued as a result of the quasi judicial order and could have been
withdrawn only when an express power is vested in the authority to do
so. In that case, this Court noted two earlier decisions in Ghaurul
Hasan vs. State of Rajasthan12 and Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia
Gandhi13, where it was held that a certificate of registration of
citizenship issued under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955
cannot be cancelled by the authority granting registration by taking
recourse to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.
Hari Shanker Jain vs Sonia Gandhi on 12 September, 2001
This Court held that the certificate was
issued as a result of the quasi judicial order and could have been
withdrawn only when an express power is vested in the authority to do
so. In that case, this Court noted two earlier decisions in Ghaurul
Hasan vs. State of Rajasthan12 and Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia
Gandhi13, where it was held that a certificate of registration of
citizenship issued under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955
cannot be cancelled by the authority granting registration by taking
recourse to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.
Government Of Andhra Pradesh And ... vs Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy And Others on 2 September, 1994
In Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Y.S. Vivekanand
Reddy14, the High Court was called upon to consider whether the
consent given by the State Government to the lessee to enter into sub-
leases could be withdrawn by invoking Section 21 of General Clauses
Act. A full bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, per S.S.M. Quadri, J
12
AIR 1967 SC 107
13
(2001) 8 SCC 233
14
AIR 1995 AP 1
22
(as His Lordship then was) held that the power to withdraw the consent
could have been exercised only as long as it was capable of being
rescinded since this exercise had to be subject to like conditions, as
contemplated by Section 21. Therefore, the Court held since the
lessee, acting on consent had executed a sub-lease and the sub-lessee
had already commenced mining operations, the consent had worked
itself out and cannot be withdrawn at that stage as the conditions
existing at the time of giving consent have changed.