Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.22 seconds)
Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther vs Kerala Financial Corporation on 17 November, 1987 cites

K. N. Guruswamy vs The State Of Mysore And Others on 24 May, 1954

The only question that arises for consideration is whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Corporation was not justified in selling the property by private negotiations in favour of M/s. Gumraj Plantations at the instance of P.M. Jacob. It is needless to state that the Government or public authorities should make all attempts to obtain the best available price while disposing of public properties. They should not generally enter into private arrangements for the purpose. These principles may be taken as well established by the following decisions of this Court: (i) K.N. Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore and others, [1955] 1 SCR 305 at 312; (ii) Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, [1978] 2 SCR 272; (iii) R.D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 1014; (iv) Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr., [1980] 3 SCR 1338; (v) Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344; (vi) Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors. [1985] Supp.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 199 - V Bose - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

The only question that arises for consideration is whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Corporation was not justified in selling the property by private negotiations in favour of M/s. Gumraj Plantations at the instance of P.M. Jacob. It is needless to state that the Government or public authorities should make all attempts to obtain the best available price while disposing of public properties. They should not generally enter into private arrangements for the purpose. These principles may be taken as well established by the following decisions of this Court: (i) K.N. Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore and others, [1955] 1 SCR 305 at 312; (ii) Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, [1978] 2 SCR 272; (iii) R.D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 1014; (iv) Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr., [1980] 3 SCR 1338; (v) Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344; (vi) Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors. [1985] Supp.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Another on 9 May, 1980

The only question that arises for consideration is whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Corporation was not justified in selling the property by private negotiations in favour of M/s. Gumraj Plantations at the instance of P.M. Jacob. It is needless to state that the Government or public authorities should make all attempts to obtain the best available price while disposing of public properties. They should not generally enter into private arrangements for the purpose. These principles may be taken as well established by the following decisions of this Court: (i) K.N. Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore and others, [1955] 1 SCR 305 at 312; (ii) Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, [1978] 2 SCR 272; (iii) R.D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 1014; (iv) Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr., [1980] 3 SCR 1338; (v) Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344; (vi) Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors. [1985] Supp.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 364 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973

This rule also flows directly from the doctrine of equality embodied in Art 14. It is now well settled as a result of the decisions of this Court in E.P. Rayappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory: it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations, because that would be denial of equality. The principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is protected by Art. 14 and it must characterise every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law. The State cannot, therefore, act arbitrarily in entering into relationship, contractual or otherwise with a third party, but its action must conform to some standard or norm which is rational and non- discriminatory."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1821 - A N Ray - Full Document

Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978

This rule also flows directly from the doctrine of equality embodied in Art 14. It is now well settled as a result of the decisions of this Court in E.P. Rayappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory: it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations, because that would be denial of equality. The principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is protected by Art. 14 and it must characterise every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law. The State cannot, therefore, act arbitrarily in entering into relationship, contractual or otherwise with a third party, but its action must conform to some standard or norm which is rational and non- discriminatory."
Supreme Court of India Cites 134 - Cited by 1982 - M H Beg - Full Document
1   2 Next