Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 133 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing Jawahar Lal Singh vs Naresh Singh & Ors on 10 February, 1987

Ujeshbhai Ishwarbhai Patel vs The Commissioner Of Municipalities ... on 3 December, 2021

10. This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the court/tribunal/authority concerned, Page 12 of 14 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 06:52:12 IST 2022 C/SCA/6793/2021 CAV ORDER DATED: 03/12/2021 which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/revisionary court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the court/tribunal/authority for reaching to such conclusion.(See State of Maharashtra v. Vitahla Rao Pritirao Chawan, Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh, State of U.P. v. Battan, Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar.)"
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A J Shastri - Full Document

Vaishaliben Ketulbhai Shah vs Ketulkumar Ashokbhai Shah on 16 October, 2023

14. In order to decide as to whether the impugned order is legally sustainable or not, the appellate court is entitled to know as to what impelled the court below to pass such order in favour of one party and against the aggrieved party. We find that this requirement is missing in the impugned order of this case and hence the interference is called for. (See Page 8 of 10 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 19 20:37:27 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3158/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/10/2023 undefined State of Maharashtra v. Vitahla Rao Pritirao Chawan, Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh, State of U.P. v. Battan, Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar.)
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A J Shastri - Full Document

Arun Kumar vs M/O Communications on 10 April, 2018

The view was re-iterated in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987 (2) SCC 222). Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority or Court, be it even the Highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the `Constitution').
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Gujarat Mineral Development ... vs Vinod Purshottam Solanki on 8 December, 2023

10. This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/and quasi−judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/revisionary Court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion. (See − State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129, Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 222, State of U.P. vs. Battan & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 607, Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 519 and State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568)."
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A J Shastri - Full Document

Abhishek Kumar Mishra S/O Ashok Kumar ... vs Ankita Ghanshyam Chauhan D/O Ghanshyam ... on 11 December, 2023

10. This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/and quasi judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/revisionary Court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion. (See State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129, Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 222, State of U.P. vs. Battan & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 607, Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 519 and State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568).
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A J Shastri - Full Document

Project Manager, Oil & Natural Gas ... vs Dabhi Rajesinh Udesinh on 30 June, 2023

14. In order to decide as to whether the impugned order is legally sustainable or not, the appellate court is entitled to know as to what impelled the court below to pass such order in favour of one party and against the aggrieved party. We find that this requirement is missing in the impugned order of this case and hence the interference is called for. (See State of Maharashtra v. Vitahla Rao Pritirao Chawan, Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh, State of U.P. v. Battan, Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar.)"
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A J Shastri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next