Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Article 299 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Dr. S.P. Kapoor Etc vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Etc on 2 November, 1981
In Dr. S.P. Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, AIR (1981) SC
2181, this Court held that when a thing is done in a post-haste manner,
mala fide would be presumed stating :
Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951
It is also well-settled that if any decision is taken by a statutory
authority at the behest or on the suggestion of a person who has no
statutory role to play, the same would be ultra vires. (See Commissioner of
Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR (1952) SC 16 and Mohinder Singh
Gill and Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others,
[1978] l SCC 405. It is, therefore, not a case where the High Court can be
said to have committed an error in entertaining the public interest
litigation. In our opinion, it has rightly been held that by reason of the
impugned order, public interest has been given a complete go-by and a
valuable public property was doled out at the behest of those who are duty
bound to protect the same.
Bihar Eastern Gangetic ... vs Sipahi Singh & Others on 1 September, 1977
Furthermore, it is not in dispute that for the purpose of demise of a
premise for a period exceeding one year, a registered document was required
to be executed. In absence of execution of such a registered deed, no title
could have passed in favour of the auction purchaser. The statutory
requirements for grant of lease must be fulfilled so as to confer a legal
right on the property upon the auction purchaser. As the statutory
conditions, as contained in Section 79 of the Act as also Section 17 of the
Indian Registration Act, were not complied with, there cannot be any doubt
whatsoever that Shri Vajubha did not derive any title by reason of said
auction or otherwise. This Court in The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen
Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh and Others, AIR (1977) SC 2149 in
relation to a grant made under Article 299 of the Constitution of India
observed:
Bangalore Medical Trust vs B.S. Muddappa And Ors on 19 July, 1991
In Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa and Others, [1991] 4 SCC 54
this Court held that an open space reserved for public park in terms of
development scheme cannot be converted into a civil amenity site for the
purpose of hospital/nursing home and allotted to a private person or body
of persons for- that purpose. Discretion, this Court pointed out, must be
exercised objectively, rationally, intelligibly, fairly and non-
arbitrarily.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
It is also well-settled that if any decision is taken by a statutory
authority at the behest or on the suggestion of a person who has no
statutory role to play, the same would be ultra vires. (See Commissioner of
Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR (1952) SC 16 and Mohinder Singh
Gill and Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others,
[1978] l SCC 405. It is, therefore, not a case where the High Court can be
said to have committed an error in entertaining the public interest
litigation. In our opinion, it has rightly been held that by reason of the
impugned order, public interest has been given a complete go-by and a
valuable public property was doled out at the behest of those who are duty
bound to protect the same.
Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria vs Union Of India on 24 July, 1961
"8. Re : Contention l : It is now well settled that the provisions of
Article 299 of the Constitution which are mandatory in character require
that a contract made in the exercise of the executive power of the Union or
of a State must satisfy three conditions viz. (1) it must be expressed to
be made by the President or by the Governor of the State, as the case may
be; (ii) it must be executed on behalf of the President or the Governor, as
the case may be, and (iii) its execution must be by such person and in such
manner as the President or Governor may direct or authorise. Failure to
comply with these conditions nullifies the contract and renders it void and
unenforceable. (See decisions of this Court in State of Bihar v. M/s. Karam
Chand Thapar & Brothers Ltd., [1962] l SCR 827 : AIR (1962) SC 110 : (1962)
2 SCJ 17, Bikhraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, [1962] 2 SCR 880 : AIR (1962)
SC 113: (1962) 2 SCJ 479 and State of West Bengal v. M/s. B.K. Mondal &
Sons, [1962] Supp l SCR 876 : AIR (1962) SC 779."