Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 51 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Manju Varma vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 November, 2004

Smt. Manju vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 March, 2018

11. From the oral and documentary evidence on record, my prima facie findings are as under:­ 11.1. The deceased was the resident of Palam, New Delhi, which is reflected from his death certificate proved as Ex.PW1/1. It falls within the jurisdiction of this court.  11.2. The   deceased   had   expired   on   29.07.2012   leaving behind two class­1 legal heirs i.e Petitioner (wife of the deceased) and   Smt.   Vimla   Devi(since   deceased)(mother   of   the   deceased). However,   during   proceedings,   Smt.   Vimla   Devi   (mother   of   the deceased)   also   expired.   The   respondent   nos.3   &   4   are   the   legal heirs of Smt. Vimla Devi. However, as per their settlement in the mediation cell, they have  given their no objections for issuance of Page no.6 of 8                                                                                                   Manju vs.  The State & ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arunachalam Muthu vs Nafan Bv on 30 November, 2012

33. Mr. Khambata further submitted that as already held in Manju Verma vs. State of U.P (supra), the power of the Chief Justice to transfer a case from one territorial jurisdiction to another is distinct from his power to frame a roster to determine the distribution of judicial work in the High Court. In that case, the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court had express power under Clause 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 to transfer matters from cases in specified areas of U.P. to Allahabad (similar to the second proviso to Regulation 4 (3) of the CLB Regulations 1991). Mr. Khambata therefore submitted that the transfer of matters inter-jurisdictionally, apart from the Principal bench, not being part of the power to frame the roster has to be expressly conferred on the Chairman. In the absence of any express power, the Chairman cannot claim such a power.
Bombay High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

M/S Kamal Infosys Ltd. Thru' M.D. N.K. ... vs The Registrar Of Companies, U.P. & ... on 15 December, 2017

Interestingly enough, this judicial pronouncement is final and it could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the same was between the same parties in the same company petition. The order dated 14th March, 2005 categorically recorded that an earlier judgment of the High Court in the case of Sumac International Ltd. Vs. M/s. PNB Capital Services Ltd & Another AIR 1997 Allahabad 424, that had held otherwise, had been rendered per incuriam, as the same did not take notice of the notification issued by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice on 5th August, 1975. The Division Bench took notice of the judgment in the case of Manju Varma Vs. State of U.P. (supra), as well and after quoting the relevant notifications and considering the judgments cited at the Bar concluded as follows:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs 1. Sabana (In Jc) on 29 October, 2014

15. Placing reliance on the judgment in Manju Vs. State (supra), let a copy of the judgment and the present order be sent to the Secretary Law & Justice, Govt. of NCT of Delhi with a forwarding letter with the request to place the matter before the appropriate authority to consider as to whether imprisonment for life awarded to accused Sabana can be reduced or pardoned in view of young age and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Urmila vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 6 December, 2023

5. The aforesaid order was challenged in another writ petition before this Court, being Writ-C No. 31901 of 2022 (Manju Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), which petition was dismissed on 20.10.2022 with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned District Magistrate by filing a revision as per sub-section (6) of Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Thereafter, the revision aforesaid was filed before the District Judge, Jaunpur in which, by judgment and order dated 06.12.2022, the District Judge set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28.09.2022 and directed that the election petition be heard and disposed of in accordance with law.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - J Banerji - Full Document

Afzal Ansari S/O Sri Subhan-Ullah ... vs State Of U.P. on 9 November, 2006

7. There are other cases relied upon by Sri V.P. Srivastava decided by the Apex Court; U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow v. State of U.P. and Ors. , Ramesh Thakur v. State of U.P. and Anr. 1999 (2) JIC, 156, Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P. 1999(2) JIC, 353, Mukhtar Ansari v. C.B.I. S.I.V. New Delhi and Anr. 1999(2) JIC, 502, Manju Varma (Dr.) v. State of U.P. and Ors. and also Sanjay Somani and Ors. v. Sate of U.P. and Ors. 2002 (1) JIC, 913.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - P Srivastava - Full Document

Registrar Of Companies vs Kamal Infosys Ltd. And Ors. on 14 March, 2005

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Manju Verma v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 73 considered the whole issue as well as the aforesaid judgments in Nasiruddin (Supra); Rajasthan High Court Association (Supra) and interpreted the provisions of Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order holding that as in the said case the order had been issued by the State Government having a seat at Lucknow, the Lucknow Bench had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition, and by transferring the case to Allahabad High Court by passing a quasi-judicial order, the Hon'ble Chief Justice deprived the said petitioner of her right as dominus litis.
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - D Gupta - Full Document

Shri J.C. Thind, Son Of Shri L.R. Thind vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through Director ... on 20 September, 2005

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Manju Verma v. State of U.P. and Ors., considered the whole issue as well as the aforesaid judgments in Nasiruddin (Supra); Rajasthan High Court Association (Supra) and interpreted the provisions of Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order holding that as in the said case the order had been issued by the State Government having a seat at Lucknow, the Lucknow Bench had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition, and by transferring the case to Allahabad High Court by passing a quasi-judicial order, the Hon'ble Chief Justice deprived the said petitioner of her right as dominus litis.
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 1 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Rajasthan State Indst.Dev.&Inv.Corpn vs Subhash Sindhi Coop.Hsg.Society ... on 12 February, 2013

This Court has on various occasions dealt with the similar situation and explained as where the writ petition is maintainable. (See: Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331; U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow, v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 2148; Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 416; and Dr. Manju Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 73).
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 76 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next