Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Ghulam Qadir vs Special Tribunal & Ors on 3 October, 2001

Smt. Savita Bhagwantrao Patil vs Shyam Pukhraj Asopa on 24 April, 2014

In the case of Ghulam Qadir ..vs.. Special Tribunal and others. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 33, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that - in case the title is to be established, the remedy of Civil Court is available and in such case, Section 9 of the Code would not bar the Civil Suit and would ask the ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2014 23:39:00 ::: 17 sa159.13.odt Authority only to avail the remedy under the provisions of J & K State Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949.
Bombay High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - A P Bhangale - Full Document

Kurapati Bangaraiah And 17 Others vs Govt. Of A.P. Rep., By Principal ... on 27 June, 2014

Sri K.S. Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 2007 Rules deal with de-notification of a Gram Panahayat; Rule 12(2) stipulates that the Government must give notice to the Gram Panchayat concerned for its consideration, and objections, if any; a gram panchayat is a body created by a statute, and a body corporate; it has a special status after the 73rd Constitution Amendment; every resident of the Gram Panchayat can agitate, if the very existence of the Gram Panchayat is sought to be snuffed out by unscrupulous officers fudging records, misrepresenting facts and violating the law at the behest of their political masters; poor MGNREGA workers, who eke out their livelihood under the MGNREGA Scheme, would be adversely affected on the gram panchayats being de-notified, and the de-notified villages constituted as a Nagar Panchayat; and, hence, the villagers of the affected villages have the locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Counsel would rely on M.S.Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise ; and Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal ).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 184 - Cited by 4 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

M/S Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 9 December, 2014

13. Of course, the well established rule regarding locus standi, that rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person (except in the case of a writ for habeas corpus or quo warranto) has undergone a sea change in the context of writ petitions filed in public interest as also noticed in Ghulam Qadir Vs. Special Tribunal (2002) 1 SCC 33.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Ionik Metallics & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 April, 2014

In this connection, we propose to rely upon the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Qadir v. Page 69 of 75 C/SCA/14908/2013 ORDER Special Tribunal (2002) 1 SCC 33 which has been subsequently, relied upon by another bench of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors reported in AIR 2006 SC 661:
Gujarat High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 3 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Nikhil T Parikh - Sole Propreitor Of ... vs Union Of India Thro Secretary & 14 on 7 May, 2014

In the aforesaid context, we propose to also rely upon the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal, (2002)1 SCC 33, which has been subsequently relied upon by another bench of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd. and another v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 661 :
Gujarat High Court Cites 122 - Cited by 3 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Federation Of Indian Mineral ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 December, 2014

13. Of course, the well established rule regarding locus standi, that rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person (except in the case of a writ for habeas corpus or quo warranto) has undergone a sea change in the context of writ petitions filed in public interest as also noticed in Ghulam Qadir Vs. Special Tribunal (2002) 1 SCC 33.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Venkatrayapuram Industrial Area ... vs Government Of A.P. Rep., By Its ... on 9 September, 2014

(Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal ). The strict rule of locus standi applicable to private litigation has been relaxed, and a broad rule has been evolved which gives the right of locus standi to any member of the pubic acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in instituting an action for redressal of public wrong or public injury, but who is not a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 132 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Devendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2014

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we find that the petitioner, even though, may not be directly involved in the matter of functioning and running of the educational institute, but prima-facie, from the documents available on record, particularly, the judgments of the Court in the suits pertaining to the same land, certain decrees are available in favour of the petitioner. That being so, if the principles applied and laid down in the case of Ghulam Qadir (supra) and the observations in Paragraph-36 are taken note of, it would be clear that the petitioner cannot be said to be stranger to the entire event, as he has certain right to the property in question. If any building is permitted to be constructed in the said property, right of the petitioner to the property in question would be adversely effected and infact, it would amount to non-suiting of the petitioner and if that be so, petitioner has a locus standi to challenge the recognition granted.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1