Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 219 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Ghulam Qadir vs Special Tribunal & Ors on 3 October, 2001

Mirza Mohammd Masood Khan & Ors vs State Of J&K & Ors on 25 March, 2009

In Gh. Qadir v. Special Tribunal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not considering an application filed by any one under Section 8 of the Act. They were considering an application made under Section 14 of the Act by the heirs of the evacuee. We have taken note of Article 142 of the Schedule to Jammu and Kashmir Limitation Act which suggests a time limit of twelve years for filing a suit to re-possess an immovable property when dispossessed while in possession or has discontinued the possession. At the same time, Section 28 of the Act 7 provides extinguishment of right to property upon expiry of the period for institution of suits limited by the said Act.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Mr K. S. Johal vs Ms Monika Kohli on 6 June, 2024

37. The Judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case titled Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal &Ors. (supra), as referred to and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, with regard to the maintainability of the petition is distinguishable in view of the fact that it has been held therein that if a person approached the Court with the assertion that the impugned action is likely to adversely affect his right, which is shown to be having source in some statutory provision, the petition filed by such a person cannot be rejected on the ground of his not having the locus standi. Here, in the present case, the petitioners were only the lessees of the property which had been wrongly declared and registered as evacuee property and same was being administered by Custodian, Evacuees Property, as such, they had no independent right as has been suggested by the Apex Court for having source in some statutory provision. The petitioners have not pleaded or urged as to how they have any right accruing from any statutory provision in their favour, except that they are the lessees of the property in question which has been ordered to be restored in favour of its rightful claimant by the authorities under the Jammu & Kashmir State Evacuees‟ (Administration of Property) Act, 2006 and has been upheld by this Court under Writ as well as Appellate jurisdiction and also upheld by the Apex Court of the country. Therefore, the aforesaid Judgment would be of no help to the petitioners in view of the different facts and circumstances of the case.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr K. S. Johal vs Ms Monika Kohli on 6 June, 2024

37. The Judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case titled Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal &Ors. (supra), as referred to and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, with regard to the maintainability of the petition is distinguishable in view of the fact that it has been held therein that if a person approached the Court with the assertion that the impugned action is likely to adversely affect his right, which is shown to be having source in some statutory provision, the petition filed by such a person cannot be rejected on the ground of his not having the locus standi. Here, in the present case, the petitioners were only the lessees of the property which had been wrongly declared and registered as evacuee property and same was being administered by Custodian, Evacuees Property, as such, they had no independent right as has been suggested by the Apex Court for having source in some statutory provision. The petitioners have not pleaded or urged as to how they have any right accruing from any statutory provision in their favour, except that they are the lessees of the property in question which has been ordered to be restored in favour of its rightful claimant by the authorities under the Jammu & Kashmir State Evacuees‟ (Administration of Property) Act, 2006 and has been upheld by this Court under Writ as well as Appellate jurisdiction and also upheld by the Apex Court of the country. Therefore, the aforesaid Judgment would be of no help to the petitioners in view of the different facts and circumstances of the case.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Bangbhumi Realbuilders Llp vs Shri Biplab Das & Ors on 9 January, 2025

47. Authorities on the issue of locus standi of a writ petitioner to maintain a writ petition suggest that, the writ petitioner must show that he has suffered a legal injury except in the case where the writ prayed is for habeas corpus or quo warranto or the writ petition is a public interest litigation. Authorities also note that, the rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a writ petitioner has undergone a change with the constitutional courts adopting a liberal approach. A writ petitioner can be non-suited on the ground of his not having locus standi only if the writ petitioner is found to be a mere stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property. We have drawn sustenance of this view from Sri K. Ramadas Shenoy (supra), (Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) and 2002 volume 1 Supreme Court Cases 33 (Ghulam Qadir vs. Special Tribunal) referred to and relied upon in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D Basak - Full Document

Hotel Association Of India And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 January, 2006

8. A provision such as Section 30, which in the year 1914 was perhaps a measure to protect the working women from exposure to the travails of alcoholic consumption, in our view is today outdated and far from serving the cause of protecting women, has in fact the effect of inhibiting and curbing the employment opportunities of modern Indian women. The Indian women today are marching step by step with men in all spheres of life. The modern Indian women is intelligent, informed, educated, confident and fully aware of her rights. The seemingly protectionist measure which might have had the effect suggested in 1914 can no longer stand the test of constitutional validity in 2005. It is settled law as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I , Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and State of Punjab v. Devan's Modern Breweries, that a provision which may be constitutional at a given place and time may become unconstitutional on account of changed circumstances and passage of time. While we are not entirely swayed by the fact that the petitioner No.2 and 4 are women employees of the hospitality industry, because such espousal in this petition by them could be involuntary and sponsored, yet we must keep in mind the fact that the issues raised in this petition affect all women working in the hospitality industry. A protectionist measure which affects severely the career prospects of women in any industry cannot be held to be valid unless it is constitutionally justified.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - M Mudgal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next