Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Gulabrao Keshavrao Patil & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 1 December, 1995
The aforesaid decision came up for consideration before the Apex Court in State Government Houseless Harijan Employees Association (supra), wherein the Apex Court reaffirming its view in Gulabrao (supra), held that there was a conflict between the Revenue Department and Urban Development and Urban Housing Department whether proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act were to be dropped or not. The matter was to be submitted to the Chief Minister for placing before the Cabinet. However, before the decision could be taken by the Cabinet, the owners wanted to enforce the decision taken by the Revenue Minister.
Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar vs The State Of Bombay And Others on 27 March, 1952
In Dattatraya Moreshwar (supra), the Apex Court has held that Article 166 directs all executive action to be expressed and authenticated in the manner laid down therein but an omission to comply with those provisions does not render the executive action a nullity. Therefore, all that the procedure established by law requires is that the appropriate Government must take a decision. If such a decision has, in fact, been taken by the appropriate Government, then there is no breach of the procedure established by law.
Major E. G. Barsay vs The State Of Bombay on 24 April, 1961
In Major E. G. Barsey (supra), the Apex Court has held as follows :
R. Chitralekha & Anr vs State Of Mysore & Ors on 29 January, 1964
The decision is factually distinguishable and cannot be construed as upsetting the settled law as noted in Chitralekha's case, AIR 1964 SC 1823."
Kedar Nath Bahl vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 5 October, 1978
In Kedar Nath Bahl (supra), the facts of the case are that the Minister recommended that the adverse entry made against Kedar Nath Bahl should be expunged and he should be confirmed on completion of his period of probation. The Chief Minister passed an order dated 13th February, 1958, agreeing with the Minister. However, no order was issued to him. Subsequently, the matter was sent for reconsideration to the Chief Minister, who vide order dated 29th October, 1958, agreed for reversion of Sri Bahl to his parent department with immediate effect. On these facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the earlier order of the Chief Minister dated 13th, February, 1958, could not give any right in favour of Kedar Nath Bahl as it was not expressed in the name of the Governor as required by Article 166 of
the Constitution as was not communicated to him. It was a provisional order, which was open for reconsideration by the Chief Minister and did not bind any one. The aforesaid decision would be of no help to the appellants-writ petitioners inasmuch, as from the records produced before us, we have found that the order dated 6th June, 2001, had been Issued pursuant to the decision taken by the Cabinet which has not yet been rescinded, which fulfils the requirement of Article 166 of the Constitution of India.
State Govt. Houseless Harijan ... vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 December, 2000
The aforesaid decision came up for consideration before the Apex Court in State Government Houseless Harijan Employees Association (supra), wherein the Apex Court reaffirming its view in Gulabrao (supra), held that there was a conflict between the Revenue Department and Urban Development and Urban Housing Department whether proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act were to be dropped or not. The matter was to be submitted to the Chief Minister for placing before the Cabinet. However, before the decision could be taken by the Cabinet, the owners wanted to enforce the decision taken by the Revenue Minister.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Birla Cotton, Spinning And Weaving ... on 23 February, 1968
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi, (1968) 9 SCR 251 : AIR 1968 SC 1232, this Court came to the conclusion that in fact sanction had been given by the Central Government as required under the Act though the order did not indicate to be so."