Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.39 seconds)R. Pandian And Anothera. Deivendran Son ... vs State Of Tamil Naduthrough The ... on 21 October, 1997
However, the principle of "strict
scrutiny" or "proportionality" and primary
review came to be explained in R. v. Secy. of
State for the Home Deptt. ex p Brind (1991) 1
AC 696. That case related to directions
given by the Home Secretary under the
Broadcasting Act, 1981 requiring BBC and IBA
to refrain from broadcasting certain matters
through persons who represented organizations
which were proscribed under legislation
concerning the prevention of terrorism. The
extent of prohibition was linked with the
direct statement made by the members of the
organizations. It did not however, for
example, preclude the broadcasting by such
persons through the medium of a film,
provided there was a "voice-over" account,
paraphrasing what they said. The applicant's
claim was based directly on the European
Convention of Human Rights. Lord Bridge
noticed that the Convention rights were not
still expressly engrafted into English law
but stated that freedom of expression was
basic to the Common law and that, even in the
absence of the Convention, English Courts
could go into the question (see p. 748-49).
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
In Tata
Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651
at pp. 679-80), Indian Express Newspapers
Bombay (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 1
SCC 641 at p.691), Supreme Court Employees'
Welfare Assn. V. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC
187 at p. 241) and U.P. Financial Corpn. V.
Gem Cap(India) (P) Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 299 at
p. 307) while judging whether the
administrative action is "arbitrary" under
Article 14 (i.e. otherwise then being
discriminatory), this Court has confined
itself to a Wednesbury review always.
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) ... vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 6 December, 1984
In Tata
Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651
at pp. 679-80), Indian Express Newspapers
Bombay (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 1
SCC 641 at p.691), Supreme Court Employees'
Welfare Assn. V. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC
187 at p. 241) and U.P. Financial Corpn. V.
Gem Cap(India) (P) Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 299 at
p. 307) while judging whether the
administrative action is "arbitrary" under
Article 14 (i.e. otherwise then being
discriminatory), this Court has confined
itself to a Wednesbury review always.
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 July, 1989
In Tata
Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651
at pp. 679-80), Indian Express Newspapers
Bombay (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 1
SCC 641 at p.691), Supreme Court Employees'
Welfare Assn. V. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC
187 at p. 241) and U.P. Financial Corpn. V.
Gem Cap(India) (P) Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 299 at
p. 307) while judging whether the
administrative action is "arbitrary" under
Article 14 (i.e. otherwise then being
discriminatory), this Court has confined
itself to a Wednesbury review always.
U.P. Financial Corporation vs Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 2 March, 1993
In Tata
Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651
at pp. 679-80), Indian Express Newspapers
Bombay (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 1
SCC 641 at p.691), Supreme Court Employees'
Welfare Assn. V. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC
187 at p. 241) and U.P. Financial Corpn. V.
Gem Cap(India) (P) Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 299 at
p. 307) while judging whether the
administrative action is "arbitrary" under
Article 14 (i.e. otherwise then being
discriminatory), this Court has confined
itself to a Wednesbury review always.
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Ors. (1995
[6] SCC 749) it was observed:
Union Of India & Another vs G. Ganayutham on 27 August, 1997
In Union of India and Anr. vs. G. Ganayutham (1997 [7]
SCC 463), this Court summed up the position relating to
proportionality in paragraphs 31 and 32, which read as
follows:
Balbir Chand vs The Food Corporation Ofindia Ltd. & Ors on 16 December, 1996
As was observed by this
Court in Balbir Chand vs. Food Corporation of India Ltd. and
Ors.(1997 [3] SCC 371), even if a co-delinquent is given
lesser punishment it cannot be a ground for interference.
Even such a plea was not available to be given credence as
the allegations were contextually different.
The Disciplinary ... vs Nikunja Bihari Patnaik on 15 April, 1996
A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards
of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the
depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the
Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the
interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with
utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do
nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct
and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every
officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court
in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja
Bihari Patnaik (1996 (9) SCC 69), it is no defence available
to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case,
when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very
discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is
dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and
operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's
authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a
misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual
in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to
have been kept in view by the High Court.