State Of Gujarat vs Puriya @ Parsottam Natvarbhai ... on 20 September, 2017
(iv) Sagar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in
(2014) 15 SCC 558.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.51 seconds)Documents citing
Shri P.S. Arora, Shri Shiv Sagar ... vs Bar Council Of India & Bar Council Of ... on 11 January, 2010
Mr.Mohan K Samtani vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 28 June, 2013
7. In the matter whether Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils are
public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the
Commission vide its decision dated 11.1.2010 (Case Nos. CIC/ AT/C / 2009/
000244, 246, 508, 511, 562, 245, 485, 510, 559, 764) in the case of S/Shri P.S.
Arora, Shiv Sagar Dwivedi, Syed Ejaz Hussai, Mahendra Deo Sharma, Sunil
Dutt, S. Mahalingam Vs. Bar Council of India & Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana,
the Commission held that "the Bar Councils - Bar Council of India and the State
Bar Councils are public authorities within the meaning of Section 2(h)(b) of the
RTI Act."
Shri. Mohan K Samtani vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 28 June, 2013
7. In the matter whether Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils are
public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the
Commission vide its decision dated 11.1.2010 (Case Nos. CIC/ AT/C / 2009/
000244, 246, 508, 511, 562, 245, 485, 510, 559, 764) in the case of S/Shri P.S.
Arora, Shiv Sagar Dwivedi, Syed Ejaz Hussai, Mahendra Deo Sharma, Sunil
Dutt, S. Mahalingam Vs. Bar Council of India & Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana,
the Commission held that "the Bar Councils - Bar Council of India and the State
Bar Councils are public authorities within the meaning of Section 2(h)(b) of the
RTI Act."
Rahul Chanda vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 September, 2025
In the case of Shib Deo Singh v. State of
Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909, such a course has also
been held to be a permissible course for correcting a wrong
order.
Montu Sardar & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 May, 2012
In my view, the objection is not well founded. The writ petition
is maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in 1963 SC 1909 (Shiv Deo Singh vs. State of
Punjab and Others). The objection, therefore, stands overruled.
Having heard Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioners,
Mr. Pan, learned Advocate for the private respondent and Mr.
Sengupta, learned Advocate for the State, I dispose of the writ
petition with the observation that the petitioners shall not be
evicted on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 26th March, 2012.
However, the proceedings initiated against them under the Act shall
be brought to its logical conclusion in accordance with law and if
an order of eviction is passed, the same may be implemented, also
in accordance with law.
1