Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.23 seconds)
Documents citing Sone Lal & Ors vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1981

Joseph Shine vs Union Of India Secretary on 31 January, 2023

Such applications, if they are in substance review applications, deserve to be rejected straight away inasmuch as the attempt is obviously to bypass Order XL Rule 3 relating to circulation of the application in chambers for consideration without oral hearing. By describing an application as one for “clarification” or “modification”, — though it is really one of review — a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open court. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (See in this connection a detailed order of the then Registrar of this Court in Sone Lal v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 398] deprecating a similar practice.)
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joseph Shine vs Union Of India Secretary on 31 January, 2023

Such applications, if they are in substance review applications, deserve to be rejected straight away inasmuch as the attempt is obviously to bypass Order XL Rule 3 relating to circulation of the application in chambers for consideration without oral hearing. By describing an application as one for “clarification” or “modification”, — though it is really one of review — a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open court. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (See in this connection a detailed order of the then Registrar of this Court in Sone Lal v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 398] deprecating a similar practice.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - K Joseph - Full Document

Bhanwar Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 16 May, 2008

In this case, the facts demonstrate clearly that the accused were the aggressors, and their object was not that of defending themselves by any stretch of the imagination. The case of Sone Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 1379 is relevant in this regard, wherein it is stated that "[a] ggressors, even if they receive injuries from the victims of their 32 aggression cannot have the right of private defence".
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 146 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Anil Mehta vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2024

By describing an application as one for "clarification" or "modification", -- though it is really one of review -- a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open court. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (See in this connection a detailed order of the then Registrar of this Court in Sone Lal v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 398] deprecating a similar practice.)
National Green Tribunal Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Mehta vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2024

By describing an application as one for "clarification" or "modification", -- though it is really one of review -- a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open court. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (See in this connection a detailed order of the then Registrar of this Court in Sone Lal v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 398] deprecating a similar practice.)
National Green Tribunal Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Mehta vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2024

By describing an application as one for "clarification" or "modification", -- though it is really one of review -- a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open court. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (See in this connection a detailed order of the then Registrar of this Court in Sone Lal v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 398] deprecating a similar practice.)
National Green Tribunal Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Mehta vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2024

By describing an application as one for "clarification" or "modification", -- though it is really one of review -- a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open court. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (See in this connection a detailed order of the then Registrar of this Court in Sone Lal v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 398] deprecating a similar practice.)
National Green Tribunal Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Mehta vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2024

By describing an application as one for "clarification" or "modification", -- though it is really one of review -- a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open court. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (See in this connection a detailed order of the then Registrar of this Court in Sone Lal v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 398] deprecating a similar practice.)
National Green Tribunal Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Mehta vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2024

By describing an application as one for "clarification" or "modification", -- though it is really one of review -- a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open court. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (See in this connection a detailed order of the then Registrar of this Court in Sone Lal v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 398] deprecating a similar practice.)
National Green Tribunal Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Mehta vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2024

By describing an application as one for "clarification" or "modification", -- though it is really one of review -- a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open court. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (See in this connection a detailed order of the then Registrar of this Court in Sone Lal v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 398] deprecating a similar practice.)
National Green Tribunal Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next