Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
44. At the same time, it cannot be denied that as far
as Courts are concerned, they are empowered to
consider as to whether any purpose would be served in
remanding the case keeping in mind whether any
prejudice is caused to the person against whom the
action is taken. This was so clarified in the case of
ECIL v. B. Karunkar (1993) 4 SCC 727 itself in the
following words:
City Corner vs Personal Asstt. To Collector & Addl. ... on 29 September, 1975
20. In the case in hand, we are not concerned with the
general principles of natural justice under the Administrative
Law. The proviso to Section 53(1) introduced the statutory
mandate of issuance of a show-cause-notice. A three Judge
Bench of the Apex Court, in case of City Corner Vs. Personal
Asstt. To Collector and Addl. District Magistrate, Nellore (AIR
W.P. No.10553/2022 with
W.P. No.4665/2024
:: 24 ::
Southern Painters vs Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd on 10 September, 1993
In case of Southern Painters Vs. Fertilizers and
Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & anr. [1994 Supp (2) SCC 699],
it has been observed :
Raghunath Thakur vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 November, 1988
10. Again, in Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar
(1989) 1 SCC 229, this Court observed: (SCC p. 230,
para 4) -
Harkishan Lal vs State Of J & K on 25 February, 1994
While in case of Krishna Lal Vs. State of Jammu
& Kashmir (1994) 4 SCC 422, it has been held :
Board Of High School & Intermediate ... vs Kumari Chittra Srivastava & Others on 20 November, 1969
This Court also spoke in
the same language in the case of The Board of High
School and Intermediate Education, U.P. & Ors. v.
Kumari Chittra Srivastava & Ors.[(1970) 1 SCC 121],
as is apparent from the following words:
R.C. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 September, 2005
In the
facts of the present case, we find that such an exercise
would be totally futile having regard to the law laid
down by this Court in R.C. Tobacco (supra)."
In case of Sudhir, it has been observed :