Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.81 seconds)P. Mohanan Pillai vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 23 February, 2007
28. Without any further dilation, I may hold that
Mohanan (supra) has only declared the law in tune with the
then extant circular No.18/91, which now stands
superseded by Circular No.79/11. A judgment is a binding
precedent so long as the statutory substratum of the said
judgment remains unchanged. Once there is any change in
the statutory position, the ratio of a previous judgment
rendered under unchanged circumstances no longer binds
the authorities, for a judgment is not legislative in
character, nor is it an edict etched in stone, thus fossilised
forever.
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta ... vs V.R. Rudani & Ors on 21 April, 1989
To contend that the respondent Bank, to be
amenable to the writ jurisdiction, has the trappings of the
State or, it is, at least, an instrumentality of the State, the
learned counsel has placed reliance on the following
decisions: Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee
Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust
and others v. V.R.Rudani and others3, Akalakunnam
Village Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Another
3 AIR 1989 SC 1607
WPC 14526/15 & con. case 9
v. Binu N. and Others4, Bindu K.B. v. State of Kerala and
Others5, State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka
D.U.Karmachari Sanstha6, Association of Milma Officers
and another v. State of Kerala and others7, U.P.State
Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra
Bhan Dubey and Others8, Pradeep Kumar Biswas v.
Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others9,
Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of
Kerala10. The learned cousel, in the alternative, has also
submitted, with certain precedential support, that the
respondent Bank discharges public functions.
Bindu.K.B vs The State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2000
To contend that the respondent Bank, to be
amenable to the writ jurisdiction, has the trappings of the
State or, it is, at least, an instrumentality of the State, the
learned counsel has placed reliance on the following
decisions: Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee
Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust
and others v. V.R.Rudani and others3, Akalakunnam
Village Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Another
3 AIR 1989 SC 1607
WPC 14526/15 & con. case 9
v. Binu N. and Others4, Bindu K.B. v. State of Kerala and
Others5, State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka
D.U.Karmachari Sanstha6, Association of Milma Officers
and another v. State of Kerala and others7, U.P.State
Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra
Bhan Dubey and Others8, Pradeep Kumar Biswas v.
Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others9,
Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of
Kerala10. The learned cousel, in the alternative, has also
submitted, with certain precedential support, that the
respondent Bank discharges public functions.
State Of Assam vs Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha on 17 March, 2009
To contend that the respondent Bank, to be
amenable to the writ jurisdiction, has the trappings of the
State or, it is, at least, an instrumentality of the State, the
learned counsel has placed reliance on the following
decisions: Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee
Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust
and others v. V.R.Rudani and others3, Akalakunnam
Village Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Another
3 AIR 1989 SC 1607
WPC 14526/15 & con. case 9
v. Binu N. and Others4, Bindu K.B. v. State of Kerala and
Others5, State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka
D.U.Karmachari Sanstha6, Association of Milma Officers
and another v. State of Kerala and others7, U.P.State
Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra
Bhan Dubey and Others8, Pradeep Kumar Biswas v.
Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others9,
Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of
Kerala10. The learned cousel, in the alternative, has also
submitted, with certain precedential support, that the
respondent Bank discharges public functions.
U.P. State Co-Operative Land ... vs Chandra Bhan Dubey And Ors on 18 December, 1998
To contend that the respondent Bank, to be
amenable to the writ jurisdiction, has the trappings of the
State or, it is, at least, an instrumentality of the State, the
learned counsel has placed reliance on the following
decisions: Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee
Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust
and others v. V.R.Rudani and others3, Akalakunnam
Village Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Another
3 AIR 1989 SC 1607
WPC 14526/15 & con. case 9
v. Binu N. and Others4, Bindu K.B. v. State of Kerala and
Others5, State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka
D.U.Karmachari Sanstha6, Association of Milma Officers
and another v. State of Kerala and others7, U.P.State
Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra
Bhan Dubey and Others8, Pradeep Kumar Biswas v.
Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others9,
Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of
Kerala10. The learned cousel, in the alternative, has also
submitted, with certain precedential support, that the
respondent Bank discharges public functions.
Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology & ... on 16 April, 2002
To contend that the respondent Bank, to be
amenable to the writ jurisdiction, has the trappings of the
State or, it is, at least, an instrumentality of the State, the
learned counsel has placed reliance on the following
decisions: Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee
Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust
and others v. V.R.Rudani and others3, Akalakunnam
Village Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Another
3 AIR 1989 SC 1607
WPC 14526/15 & con. case 9
v. Binu N. and Others4, Bindu K.B. v. State of Kerala and
Others5, State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka
D.U.Karmachari Sanstha6, Association of Milma Officers
and another v. State of Kerala and others7, U.P.State
Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra
Bhan Dubey and Others8, Pradeep Kumar Biswas v.
Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others9,
Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of
Kerala10. The learned cousel, in the alternative, has also
submitted, with certain precedential support, that the
respondent Bank discharges public functions.
Thalappalam Service Co-Operative Bank ... vs Kerala State Co-Operative Rubber ... on 31 October, 2013
To contend that the respondent Bank, to be
amenable to the writ jurisdiction, has the trappings of the
State or, it is, at least, an instrumentality of the State, the
learned counsel has placed reliance on the following
decisions: Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee
Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust
and others v. V.R.Rudani and others3, Akalakunnam
Village Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Another
3 AIR 1989 SC 1607
WPC 14526/15 & con. case 9
v. Binu N. and Others4, Bindu K.B. v. State of Kerala and
Others5, State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka
D.U.Karmachari Sanstha6, Association of Milma Officers
and another v. State of Kerala and others7, U.P.State
Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra
Bhan Dubey and Others8, Pradeep Kumar Biswas v.
Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others9,
Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of
Kerala10. The learned cousel, in the alternative, has also
submitted, with certain precedential support, that the
respondent Bank discharges public functions.
Commissioner Of Central Excise,Bolpur vs M/S.Ratan Melting & Wire Industries on 14 October, 2008
In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratan
Melting and Wire Industries (supra) has held thus:
Regional Manager, Uco Bank vs Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj on 18 February, 2022
27. It is not in dispute that the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies issued Circular No.79/11 dated
09.11.2011 in modification of, among other things, Circular
No.18/91 as well. Condition No.4(c) specifically stipulates
that the written test shall be conducted by an outside
agency having the expertise or knowledge or experience in
the field of co-operation. The said agency, by definition, also
includes individuals. In the present instance an individual, a
retired officer of the Co-operative Department has been
appointed. So long as Circular No.79/11 has not been
challenged, I do not think the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners has any substance. The learned
Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Kumar (supra) has
only held that when a Society conducts recruitment in
violation of the Statute and circular issued by the Registrar,
an aggrieved party can always invoke writ jurisdiction to
WPC 14526/15 & con. case 20
challenge the recruitment.