Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 83 (0.39 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K.Marappan vs The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 29 September, 2006
24. It is important to consider the Larger Bench judgment of
the High Court of Madras, in the case of K.Marappan Vs. Deputy
Registrar of Cooperative Societies, reported in 2006 (4) CTC 689,
which is now being followed by the Courts, for the purpose of dealing
with the writ petitions filed against the management of the
Cooperative Societies, which is not a "State".
The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983
Union Of India & Anr vs Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc on 16 May, 1989
…’ (Raghubir Singh case [Union of India v. Raghubir Singh,
(1989) 2 SCC 754] , SCC p. 778, para 28)”
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Asstt. Collector Of Estate Duty Madras vs V. Devaki Ammal, Madras on 17 November, 1994
In the case of Assistant Collector of Estate Duty, Madras Vs.
V.Devaki Ammal (Smt), Madras, which is referred by the learned
counsel for the writ petitioner also reiterated that, the judgments of
the higher Courts are to be followed for the purpose of adopting the
legal principles. However, it is clarified that, while adopting the
principles, the facts, circumstances and applicability are to be
independently consider by the Courts. It is not as if, a blind decision
is to be arrived based on one judgment or other.
Pradip Chandra Parija And Ors vs Pramod Chandra Patanaik And Ors on 4 December, 2001
…”
Be it noted, Chandra Prakash [Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P.,
(2002) 4 SCC 234 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 496] concurred with the view
expressed in Raghubir Singh [Union of India v. Raghubir Singh,
(1989) 2 SCC 754] and Pradip Chandra Parija [Pradip Chandra
Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik, (2002) 1 SCC 1] .
The Companies Act, 1956
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978
“(1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the
corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards
indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of
Government. (SCC p. 507, para 14)
(2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to
meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford
some indication of the corporation being impregnated with
Governmental character. (SCC p. 508, para 15)
(3) It may also be a relevant factor ... whether the corporation
enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected.
(SCC p. 508, para 15)
(4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an
indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality.
(SCC p. 508, para 15)
(5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and
closely related to Governmental functions, it would be a relevant
factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency
of Government. (SCC p. 509, para 16)
http://www.judis.nic.in
15
(6) ‘Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a
corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference’
of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of
Government.” (SCC p. 510, para 18)
If on a consideration of these relevant factors it is found that the
corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government, it
would, as pointed out in the International Airport Authority
case [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : (1978)
2 SCR 621] , be an “authority” and, therefore, ‘State’ within the
meaning of the expression in Article 12.