Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Ghulam Qadir vs Special Tribunal & Ors on 3 October, 2001

Mehraj- Ud- Din Yatoo & Ors vs Special Tribunal And Others on 19 July, 2016

08/ Mr. G.A.Lone, further referred to judgements of this Court and of Honble the Supreme Court and submitted that the view taken by the apex Court, in its 2002 judgment in case titled Ghulam Qadir versus Special Tribunal and others, has been clarified by the Honble Division Bench of this Court in case reported in 2009 (2) JKJ 38 (HC), in which, in view of the earlier judgement of the apex Court, it has been held that section 8 of the Act of 2006 is a living Statute.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mehraj- Ud- Din Yatoo & Ors vs State & Ors on 19 July, 2016

23/ The answer to other submission, made by learned counsel for the Appellants based on judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ghulam Qadir's case supra, reported in 2002 (1) SCC 33, is provided in the judgement of the apex Court in case titled State of J&K versus Mehmood Ahmad and others, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1450, and stand clarified by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled Mirza Muhammad Masood Khan and others versus State and others, reported as 2009(2)JKJ 38 (HC).
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mehraj- Ud- Din Yatoo & Ors vs State & Ors on 19 July, 2016

23/ The answer to other submission, made by learned counsel for the Appellants based on judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ghulam Qadir's case supra, reported in 2002 (1) SCC 33, is provided in the judgement of the apex Court in case titled State of J&K versus Mehmood Ahmad and others, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1450, and stand clarified by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled Mirza Muhammad Masood Khan and others versus State and others, reported as 2009(2)JKJ 38 (HC).
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ... vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 4 January, 2016

In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33, this Court considered a similar issue and observed as under: There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper-technical grounds.------- In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having the locus standi. (Emphasis added)
Madras High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 6 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Kuvrabhai Bharabhai Bharvad vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 14 July, 2016

(para 59) 5.2 It was further stated that in the garb of being a necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case for become a party on the ground that it is in general public interest. Thereby it is suggested that on the specious ground of promoting general interest, a party cannot be allowed to join the proceedings. Legally it would be an impermissible course. A person having remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis. As noted above, a person who want to become a party is required to establish that he has some right. The Apex Court observed that, "... ... ... as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right int eh injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. (Vide Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. Advocate general of Maharashtra, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P., Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Co.)... ..." (Para 60) 5.3 It was next submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that applicant can be said to be interested because of the provision of Section 77(4) of the Cooperative Societies Act. Looking at Section 77, it provides for Annual General Meeting. Sub- section 94) thereof contemplates that in every Annual General Meeting, the balance-sheet and Profit & Loss Accounts shall be placed for adoption. Submission of Page 5 of 7 HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Tue Jul 19 06:43:00 IST 2016 C/CA/597/2016 JUDGMENT learned advocate for the applicant was that in such meeting the applicant would have a right of audience and right to object as member. It is too far-fetched a logic to assist the applicant in his plea for becoming party. It is not tenable in law that merely because as a member, the applicant can remain present in the meeting for consideration of the accounts under Section 77(4), he gets right to become party in the proceedings of challenge to the order for re-auditing. The submission that because of provision of Section 77(4) of the Act, the applicant derives interest to become party is misconceived. The subject as well as the stage of Section 77(4) are altogether different. It does not vest the applicant with any legal interest necessarily to be impleaded as party.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ... vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 4 January, 2016

In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33, this Court considered a similar issue and observed as under: There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper-technical grounds.------- In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having the locus standi. (Emphasis added)
Madras High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

S.B.Rexlin vs The Chief Educational Officer on 7 January, 2016

In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33, this Court considered a similar issue and observed as under:– “There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 07:59:12 pm ) W.P Nos. 40205 and 12954 of 2016 an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper-
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next