Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.80 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Seeds Act, 1966
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. National Seeds Corpn. Ltd vs M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr on 16 January, 2012
25. However, with due regard, it is found from the above
decision that in the nature of grievance as discussed therein the
compensation can be claimed before a Consumer Forum or State
Commission, as the case may be, under the Consumer
Protection Act because under the Seeds Act the seeds were
distributed following the provisions of the Seeds Act and Rules.
But in the instant case there is no statute or rule produced to
show that the opposite parties have violated the norms. The fact
of above case is also different from the fact of the case in hand.
So, the said decision also does not extend help to petitioner.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Union Of India vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 22 October, 1997
In Union of India v. United India Insurance
Co.Ltd. - (1997) 8 SCC 683 this Court held:
Rabindra Nath Ghosal vs University Of Calcutta & Others on 30 September, 2002
In Rabindra Nath Ghosal Vs. University of
Calcutta (2002) 7 SCC 478 this Court held:
Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar And Another on 1 August, 1983
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
decision reported in (1983) 4 SCC 141; Rudul Sah v. State of
Bihar and another and submitted that administrative sclerosis
leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be
corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt.
But right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts
18
of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and
which present for their protection the powers of the State as a
shield. After going through the decision, it appears that was a
case where a prisoner was detained in jail for a period of 14
years without any trial, consequently Article 21 where
guarantees the right to life and liberty have been denuded. So,
the Hon‟ble Apex Court passed the order awarding
compensation. With no respectful disagreement with the
principles, it is found that the facts and circumstances of said
decision is completely different from the facts and circumstances
of the present case for which the said decision will not apply to
the present case.