Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.24 seconds)Vineet Narain & Others vs Union Of India & Another on 18 December, 1997
"The Central Vigilance Commission vide their U.O. No. 97/HVI /2-PART-III-A dated 14.12.1998 has made certain observations on the final report sent to them vide the CBI letter dated 16.7.1998 in the above case. The parawise comments on the said observations of the CVC are given below:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs H.R. Patankar & Ors on 14 August, 1984
Krishna Chandra Tandon vs The Union Of India (Uoi) on 24 April, 1974
Golam Mohiuddin vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 3 December, 1963
41. The Calcutta High Court in "Gulam Mohiuddin v. State of West Bengal and Ors.", :
Surendra Chandra Das vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 23 November, 1981
43. The same High Court in "Surendra Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors.", 1982 Lab. I.C, 574 noticed the principle in the following terms:
Food Corporation Of India And Anr. vs V.P. Bhatia on 4 October, 1996
46. in "Food Corporation of India v. V.P. Bhatia", JT1998 (8)SC 16, the Supreme Court had laid down that the department concerned would be justified in waiting for the report from the CBI before any action is contemplated. The facts, as noticed by the Supreme Court, are :
Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 December, 1974
In "Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia v. The State of Punjab and Ors.", , and "Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India and Ors.", 1990 (Suppl.) SCC 440, the Supreme Court had considered the scope of the guidelines or the policy framed by the Government. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, submitted that the principles under Article 73 relating to the Central Government and Article 162 relating to the State Government would apply
to this case, because the Vigilance Manual would govern this case as there are no statutory rules dealing with the situation dealt with in the Vigilance Manual. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, when the field is unoccupied, as it were by the statutory rules, the policy or the guidelines such as the Vigilance Manual would have to be followed by the Ministry, the first respondent. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, referred, to the following rulings by the Supreme Court and the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.