Harjinder Wuthoo

< Previous Part  observed that it was futile to attempt the resuscitation of the now exploded doctrine of the immunity of instrumentalities which originating from the observations of Marshall, C. J., in M' Culloch v. Maryland,(2) has been decisively rejected by the Privy Council as [...]

< Previous Part In Om Kumar and Others vs. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386], it was held that where administrative action is challenged under Article 14 as being discriminatory, equals are treated unequally or unequals are treated equally, the question is for the constitutional courts as [...]

< Previous Part The power of judicial review is now well-defined in a series of decisions of this Court. It is trite that the court will have no jurisdiction to entertain a writ application in a matter governed by contract qua contract (assuming such professional engagement to be one), as [...]

< Previous Part  Hence, also the convention that in many professional dealings the matter of the fee was never openly talked about, which could be very convenient, since it precluded the client or patient from arguing about whatever sum his advisor might eventually indicate as a fitting [...]

< Previous Part  3. The Government have further examined the matter in the light of parameters prescribed by the Tribunal in their Order No.116/88-C dated 10-2-1988 in the case of M/s Richardson Hindustan Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad. The Tribunal held that a preparation would merit [...]