Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
(Emphasis supplied)
A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of TATA
CELLULAR (supra) deviated from the hitherto prevailing principle
and observed that the modern trend points to judicial restraint in
administrative action. The Court would not sit as a court of appeal
but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
Therefore, the examination would be the decision making process.
M/S N.G. Projects Limited vs M/S Vinod Kumar Jain on 21 March, 2022
13. The aforesaid judgments are followed by the Apex Court
in the cases of SILPPI CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRACTORS v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 16 SCC
489, N.G. PROJECTS LIMITED v. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND
OTHERS reported in (2022)6 SCC 127 and UFLEX LIMITED
v. GOVERNMENT TAMILNADU AND OTHERS reported in
(2022) 1 SCC 165.
M/S Michigan Rubber(I) Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 August, 2012
12. The Apex Court, later, in the case of MICHIGAN
RUBBER (INDIA) LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS2 has held as follows:
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
13. The aforesaid judgments are followed by the Apex Court
in the cases of SILPPI CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRACTORS v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 16 SCC
489, N.G. PROJECTS LIMITED v. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND
OTHERS reported in (2022)6 SCC 127 and UFLEX LIMITED
v. GOVERNMENT TAMILNADU AND OTHERS reported in
(2022) 1 SCC 165.
Dhananjay Ganesh Joshi vs Ganesh Subhash Joshi And Anr on 3 June, 2019
5. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel Sri
Dhananjay V. Joshi representing the respondent/Corporation would
10
vehemently refute the submissions to contend that it is for the
Corporation to draw up its eligibility criteria for outsourcing
manpower to run COCO retail outlets. It is only these two
petitioners who have called the action in question and in every
other outlet the process is over and service providers in terms of
the notification are also in place. He would contend that judicial
review in cases of this kind where the employer fixes certain criteria
for execution of a contract of manpower, it would not generally be
interfered with and there is no arbitrariness, illegality or otherwise
that can be discerned from the notification.
1