Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Ghulam Qadir vs Special Tribunal & Ors on 3 October, 2001

Harish Vasudevan vs Union Of India on 11 March, 2020

23. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus standi W.P(C) No.7487 of 2020 59 to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in the exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, in- articulation or poverty, are unable to approach the Court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the Court, then the Court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the Court, requires consideration, the Court may proceed suo-motu, in such respect."
Kerala High Court Cites 72 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Thankappan vs State Of Kerala on 18 July, 2002

6. The Tribunal on receipt of the application under Sub-section (1) of Section 8B shall review its earlier decision and pass such orders as it may think fit. The expression "as it may think fit" confers very wide jurisdiction enabling the Tribunal to take an entirely different view on the same set of facts or on facts which were omitted to be produced earlier though available. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in R.M. Pananjype v. A.M. Mali, AIR 1962 SC 753, Babulan Nagar v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. AIR 1984 SC 1164, Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33. Tribunal is not circumscribed by any restrictions of Section 8B(1) in reviewing its earlier order. Tribunal if it finds earlier order was passed erroneously can pass appropriate orders as it thinks fit.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006

(Vide Ishwerdeo Narain Singh v. Smt. Kamta Devi and Others - AIR 1954 SC 280, Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Others - 1993 (2) SCC 507, Pappoo v. Kuruvila - 1994 (2) KLT 278, Varghese v. Oommen - 1994 (2) KLT 620, Thomas P. Jacob v. Varghese - 1987 (1) KLT 319, I.M. Madhavi v. Sree Ramavarma - 1969 KLT 806, Ghulam Quadir v. Special Tribunal and Others - 2002 (1) SCC 33; Kuruvila v. Sosamma 2000 (2) KLT 399 and C.P. Poulose & Others v. C.P. Paul & Others - 1996 (1) KLJ 472). The Probate Court cannot also enter into the question as to whether the testator's property was joint or separate.
Kerala High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - V Ramkumar - Full Document

Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006

(Vide Ishwerdeo Narain Singh v. Smt. Kamta Devi and Others - AIR 1954 SC 280, Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Others - 1993 (2) SCC 507, Pappoo v. Kuruvila - 1994 (2) KLT 278, Varghese v. Oommen - 1994 (2) KLT 620, Thomas P. Jacob v. Varghese - 1987 (1) KLT 319, I.M. Madhavi v. Sree Ramavarma - 1969 KLT 806, Ghulam Quadir v. Special Tribunal and Others - 2002 (1) SCC 33; Kuruvila v. Sosamma 2000 (2) KLT 399 and C.P. Poulose & Others v. C.P. Paul & Others - 1996 (1) KLJ 472). The Probate Court cannot also enter into the question as to whether the testator's property was joint or separate.
Kerala High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 3 - V Ramkumar - Full Document

Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006

(Vide Ishwerdeo Narain Singh v. Smt. Kamta Devi and Others - AIR 1954 SC 280, Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Others - 1993 (2) SCC 507, Pappoo v. Kuruvila - 1994 (2) KLT 278, Varghese v. Oommen - 1994 (2) KLT 620, Thomas P. Jacob v. Varghese - 1987 (1) KLT 319, I.M. Madhavi v. Sree Ramavarma - 1969 KLT 806, Ghulam Quadir v. Special Tribunal and Others - 2002 (1) SCC 33; Kuruvila v. Sosamma 2000 (2) KLT 399 and C.P. Poulose & Others v. C.P. Paul & Others - 1996 (1) KLJ 472). The Probate Court cannot also enter into the question as to whether the testator's property was joint or separate.
Kerala High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - V Ramkumar - Full Document

Elsy vs V.K.Raju on 20 October, 2006

(Vide Ishwerdeo Narain Singh v. Smt. Kamta Devi and Others - AIR 1954 SC 280, Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Others - 1993 (2) SCC 507, Pappoo v. Kuruvila - 1994 (2) KLT 278, Varghese v. Oommen - 1994 (2) KLT 620, Thomas P. Jacob v. Varghese - 1987 (1) KLT 319, I.M. Madhavi v. Sree Ramavarma - 1969 KLT 806, Ghulam Quadir v. Special Tribunal and Others - 2002 (1) SCC 33; Kuruvila v. Sosamma 2000 (2) KLT 399 and C.P. Poulose & Others v. C.P. Paul & Others - 1996 (1) KLJ 472). The Probate Court cannot also enter into the question as to whether the testator's property was joint or separate.
Kerala High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - V Ramkumar - Full Document

The State Of Kerala vs T.K.I. Ahamed Sherief on 10 October, 2025

Further in the matter of Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 33, again the Supreme Court reiterated the settled position of law that the remedy under Art. 226 can be enforced only by an aggrieved person, except in cases where the writ prayed for is Habeas Corpus or Quo Warranto or writ petition has been filed by way of a Public Interest Litigation (for short, 'PIL'). The existence of the individualised legal right and its infringement are the foundation that accords locus standi W.A.Nos.603 of 2025 & 606 of 2025 -: 34 :- 2025:KER:74409 to any person to approach the Writ Court. Even though liberal approach has been adopted by Constitutional Courts, even then, the person approaching the Writ Court must satisfy that the action impugned by him is likely adverse to his individual/personal rights, traceable to some source in some statutory provision. If such a person filing the writ petition is found to be a stranger, having no personal right of his being infringed directly, then clearly the writ petition cannot be held to be maintainable. Therefore, applying the primary test, none of the personal/individualised right of the OWP's is shown to have been infringed if the IC constituted by the State Government is allowed to go ahead with the inquiry. In the opinion of this Court, if the IC proceeds ahead with the inquiry and files its report with suitable suggestions to the State Government to take any action, there's no harm even perceived to occur to the petitioners. It is rather for the actual person aggrieved by such a report being prepared and tabled by the IC, that too at a later appropriate stage to approach this Hon'ble Court pointing out clearly how his/her rights are infringed by the mere constitution of an IC.
Kerala High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi ... on 10 October, 2025

Further in the matter of Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 33, again the Supreme Court reiterated the settled position of law that the remedy under Art. 226 can be enforced only by an aggrieved person, except in cases where the writ prayed for is Habeas Corpus or Quo Warranto or writ petition has been filed by way of a Public Interest Litigation (for short, 'PIL'). The existence of the individualised legal right and its infringement are the foundation that accords locus standi W.A.Nos.603 of 2025 & 606 of 2025 -: 34 :- 2025:KER:74409 to any person to approach the Writ Court. Even though liberal approach has been adopted by Constitutional Courts, even then, the person approaching the Writ Court must satisfy that the action impugned by him is likely adverse to his individual/personal rights, traceable to some source in some statutory provision. If such a person filing the writ petition is found to be a stranger, having no personal right of his being infringed directly, then clearly the writ petition cannot be held to be maintainable. Therefore, applying the primary test, none of the personal/individualised right of the OWP's is shown to have been infringed if the IC constituted by the State Government is allowed to go ahead with the inquiry. In the opinion of this Court, if the IC proceeds ahead with the inquiry and files its report with suitable suggestions to the State Government to take any action, there's no harm even perceived to occur to the petitioners. It is rather for the actual person aggrieved by such a report being prepared and tabled by the IC, that too at a later appropriate stage to approach this Hon'ble Court pointing out clearly how his/her rights are infringed by the mere constitution of an IC.
Kerala High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next