Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)Municipal Board, Pratabgarh And Anr. vs Mahendra Singh Chawla And Ors. on 11 October, 1982
It was next contended that this Court should not inter-
fere in exercise of its extra-ordinary Jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution. In support of this conten-
tion reliance was placed on the observations of this Court
in Municipal Board. Pratabgarh & Anr. v. Mahendra Singh
Chawla & Ors., [1982] 3 SCC 331 wherein this Court while
correcting an error of law refused to interfere with the
decision of the High Court directing reinstatement of the
workman on the finding that the termination order was in-
valid. That was, however, a case where the Court came to the
conclusion that the employee was a capable hand and his
services were actually needed by the appellant Municipal
Board. It was in those special circumstances that this Court
while correcting the error refused to interfere with the
order of reinstatement. The decision, therefore, turned on
the special facts of that case.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Uttar Pradesh Mahavidyalaya Tadarth ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 12 November, 1986
The appellant invited our attention to two decisions of
this Court, namely, Union of India & Anr. v. M/s. Pararnes-
waran Match Works & Ors., [1975]1 SCC 305 and Uttar Pradesh
Mahavidyalaya Tadarth Shikshak Niyamitikaran Abhiyan Samiti,
Varanasi v. State of U.P. & Ors. [1987] 2 SCC 453 in sup-
port of its contention that the High Court was in error in
holding that the State had acted arbitrarily in fixing the
cut-off date. In the first mentioned case by Notification
No. 162 dated 21st July, 1967, which superseded the earlier
notifications, provision was made that if a manufacturer
gave a declaration that the total clearance from the factory
will not exceed 75 million matches during a financial year,
he would be entitled to a concessional rate of duty.This
Notification was amended by Notification No.205 dated 4th
September, 1967, clause (b) whereof confined the concession,
inter alia to factories whose total clearance of matches
during the financial year 1967-68, as per declaration made
by the manufacturer before 4th September, 1967, was not
estimated to exceed 75 million matches. Thus, the conces-
sional rate of duty could be availed of only by those who
made the declaration before 4th September, 1967. The re-
spondent was not a manufacturer before 4th September, 1967
as he had sought for a licence on 5th September, 1967 and
was therefore, in no position to made the declaration before
4th September, 1967. The respondent, therefore, challenged
the cut-off date of 4th September, 1967 as arbitrary. Deal-
ing with the contention, this Court observed as under:
1