Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 453 (1.58 seconds)

Suman Das Goswami vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2024

39.So far as the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, is concerned, the High Court taking note of the fact that there was non-compliance of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1972, as applicable to facts of said case, has observed in Para 21.4 that "in the light of above provisions, readjustment of wards can only be done in 46 / 48 the case of alteration of municipal limits or in pursuance of the Census. The Court also observed that exercise of delimitation of wards was done in a most opaque manner and in complete violation of the procedure prescribed under Rules 3 to 8 of the Rules of 1972. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further considered that principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed in the statute.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tek Chand Karda vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2024

39.So far as the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, is concerned, the High Court taking note of the fact that there was non-compliance of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1972, as applicable to facts of said case, has observed in Para 21.4 that "in the light of above provisions, readjustment of wards can only be done in 46 / 48 the case of alteration of municipal limits or in pursuance of the Census. The Court also observed that exercise of delimitation of wards was done in a most opaque manner and in complete violation of the procedure prescribed under Rules 3 to 8 of the Rules of 1972. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further considered that principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed in the statute.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Santosh Namdeo vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2024

39.So far as the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, is concerned, the High Court taking note of the fact that there was non-compliance of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1972, as applicable to facts of said case, has observed in Para 21.4 that "in the light of above provisions, readjustment of wards can only be done in 46 / 48 the case of alteration of municipal limits or in pursuance of the Census. The Court also observed that exercise of delimitation of wards was done in a most opaque manner and in complete violation of the procedure prescribed under Rules 3 to 8 of the Rules of 1972. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further considered that principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed in the statute.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajeshwar Sonkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2024

39.So far as the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, is concerned, the High Court taking note of the fact that there was non-compliance of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1972, as applicable to facts of said case, has observed in Para 21.4 that "in the light of above provisions, readjustment of wards can only be done in 46 / 48 the case of alteration of municipal limits or in pursuance of the Census. The Court also observed that exercise of delimitation of wards was done in a most opaque manner and in complete violation of the procedure prescribed under Rules 3 to 8 of the Rules of 1972. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further considered that principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed in the statute.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kulbeer Singh Chhabra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2024

39.So far as the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, is concerned, the High Court taking note of the fact that there was non-compliance of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1972, as applicable to facts of said case, has observed in Para 21.4 that "in the light of above provisions, readjustment of wards can only be done in 46 / 48 the case of alteration of municipal limits or in pursuance of the Census. The Court also observed that exercise of delimitation of wards was done in a most opaque manner and in complete violation of the procedure prescribed under Rules 3 to 8 of the Rules of 1972. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further considered that principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed in the statute.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sageer Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2024

39.So far as the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, is concerned, the High Court taking note of the fact that there was non-compliance of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1972, as applicable to facts of said case, has observed in Para 21.4 that "in the light of above provisions, readjustment of wards can only be done in 46 / 48 the case of alteration of municipal limits or in pursuance of the Census. The Court also observed that exercise of delimitation of wards was done in a most opaque manner and in complete violation of the procedure prescribed under Rules 3 to 8 of the Rules of 1972. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further considered that principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed in the statute.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pramod Kumar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2024

39.So far as the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, is concerned, the High Court taking note of the fact that there was non-compliance of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1972, as applicable to facts of said case, has observed in Para 21.4 that "in the light of above provisions, readjustment of wards can only be done in 46 / 48 the case of alteration of municipal limits or in pursuance of the Census. The Court also observed that exercise of delimitation of wards was done in a most opaque manner and in complete violation of the procedure prescribed under Rules 3 to 8 of the Rules of 1972. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further considered that principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed in the statute.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharmendra Lodha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2024

39.So far as the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, is concerned, the High Court taking note of the fact that there was non-compliance of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1972, as applicable to facts of said case, has observed in Para 21.4 that "in the light of above provisions, readjustment of wards can only be done in 46 / 48 the case of alteration of municipal limits or in pursuance of the Census. The Court also observed that exercise of delimitation of wards was done in a most opaque manner and in complete violation of the procedure prescribed under Rules 3 to 8 of the Rules of 1972. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further considered that principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed in the statute.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kripa Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2024

39.So far as the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, is concerned, the High Court taking note of the fact that there was non-compliance of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1972, as applicable to facts of said case, has observed in Para 21.4 that "in the light of above provisions, readjustment of wards can only be done in 46 / 48 the case of alteration of municipal limits or in pursuance of the Census. The Court also observed that exercise of delimitation of wards was done in a most opaque manner and in complete violation of the procedure prescribed under Rules 3 to 8 of the Rules of 1972. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further considered that principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed in the statute.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aijaz Dhebar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 October, 2024

39.So far as the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by Mr. S.C. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, is concerned, the High Court taking note of the fact that there was non-compliance of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1972, as applicable to facts of said case, has observed in Para 21.4 that "in the light of above provisions, readjustment of wards can only be done in 46 / 48 the case of alteration of municipal limits or in pursuance of the Census. The Court also observed that exercise of delimitation of wards was done in a most opaque manner and in complete violation of the procedure prescribed under Rules 3 to 8 of the Rules of 1972. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further considered that principle is well settled that where any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, then, that thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed in the statute.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next