Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 127 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Bihar & Anr vs Bal Mukund Sah & Ors on 14 March, 2000

N.Y. Gupte And Anr. vs High Court Of Judicature At Bombay And ... on 24 September, 2001

Inasmuch as we have only followed the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Shah (supra), the request is rejected. Mr. Parikh applies for stay of this judgment and order. The post of Principal Judge is lying vacant for the last about 6 months and it is not desirable to continue this position any further. This request is also rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

State vs Bal Bhagwan on 30 October, 2015

Now, the only witness in support of the prosecution version is PW1 Sukhbir who is also the injured in the present matter. He deposed that on 12.07.2011, while the deceased was driving his company car, the accused reached at the spot in the offending vehicle from behind and hit his vehicle due to which the truck i.e. the offending vehicle turtled upon the complainant's car. Due to this accident, he received injuries and the deceased Sh. Jaiveer expired. He further states that State v. Bal Bhagwan FIR no. 118/11 PS Kapashera Page 4 of 5 the accident was caused due to the negligence of the accused but admitted in his cross- examination that he had not seen the accused driving in a rash and negligent manner. It is not even alleged that the accused was driving the vehicle at a nigh speed. Now, even if it is presumed that the accused was driving at a high speed, the same itself shall not constitute rash and negligent act.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramesh M. Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 15 July, 2004

9.1 The High Court, being "State" within the meaning of Article 12 for the purpose of Parts III and IV of the Constitution, is empowered to make special provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in its opinion, is not adequately represented in judicial services. Even in the matters of promotion, there is now a similar provision under Article 16(4A) read with the proviso to Article 335 of the Constitution. The Directive Principle enshrined under Article 46, which is fundamental in the governance of the country though not enforceable, enjoins a duty on the State (as defined under Article 12 which would also include the High Court) to promote with special care the education and economic interests of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes and to protect them from social injustice. The State is under a duty to apply these principles in making laws and the Courts being under a constitutional oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws cannot remain oblivious of the purposes underlying the constitutional provisions devised to ameliorate the lot of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes under Articles 16(4), 46 and 335 of the Constitution of India. It is in this context that the following observations in the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah (supra) assume great significance:
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - D H Waghela - Full Document

Writ Petition No.5433 Of 2015 vs Dated:29-04-2016

10.2 Article 233, dealing with appointment of District Judges, of its own express terminology, projects a complete scheme regarding the appointment of persons to the district judiciary as District Judges apart from laying down the eligibility criterion for candidates to be appointed from the bar as direct District Judges. The said provision is hedged by the condition that only those recommended by the High Court for such appointment could be appointed by the Governor of the State. Similarly, for recruitment of judicial offices other than District Judges to the judicial service at lower level, a complete scheme is provided by Article 234 wherein the Governor of the State can make such appointments in accordance with "rules" framed by him after consulting with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. In our case, it is not in dispute that selection of subordinate judicial officers requires to be done by the High Court. It is pertinent to note that even if Public Service Commission is to undertake recruitment, as observed by the Supreme Court in Bal Mukund (supra), it requires to act in consultation with the High Court so far as recruitment to the posts in subordinate judiciary are concerned. The Supreme Court in this case has observed that "of course, it will be for the High Court to decide how many vacancies in the cadre of District Judges and Subordinate Judges are required to be filled in by direct recruitment so far as district judiciary is concerned and necessarily only by direct recruitment so far as subordinate judiciary is concerned."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 94 - Cited by 0 - S V Bhatt - Full Document

Bharat Bhushan Basotia vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 October, 2005

In case of State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Shah (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the Government in consultation with the High Court make appropriate rules and provide for scheme of reservation for appointment at grass root level or even at the highest level of the district judiciary, so long as this is not done, the State legislature cannot by upsetting the entire applo cart and totally by passing the constitutional mandate of Article 233 and 234 and without being required to consult the High Court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - K S Rathore - Full Document

Bukharee Aezazalee Makhadumalee vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 July, 2011

The fact remains to be noted that the appointing authority has rejected petitioner only on account of negative opinion received from the competent authority. The Court is unable to accept submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the name of the petitioner was forwarded by the High Court to the Government it amounted to have been cleared by High Court for appointment and State could not have excluded the petitioner from the list of candidates to be appointed as civil judges. The counsel for the petitioner missed the clear and unequivocal message giving liberty rather casting obligation on the Government to obtain opinions from the competent authorities in respect of six candidates including the present petitioner whose names were separately mentioned in the High court s letter dated 16/17-3-2012 produced at page 72 in the compilation. The Government therefore was left with no choice but to obey the direction and requested the competent authorities to send in their opinions in respect of the six candidates mentioned in the letter dated 16/17-03.2012. Therefore the decision of the apex court in case of State of Bihar And Another Vs. Bal Mukund Sah And Others, reported in reported in (2000) 4 SCC, pg. 640 would be of no avail to the petitioner. As the Government cannot be said to have overlooked or diluted the express direction of the Gujarat High Court in inviting opinions from the respective competent authorities in respect of the six candidates including petitioner.
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S R Brahmbhatt - Full Document

Manjeet Kumar vs The O.S.D.To His Excellency,Th on 10 November, 2014

The State Government although has relied upon some parts of the judgment in the matter of Bal Mukund Sah (supra) and some orders issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Malik Mazhar Sultan, has not taken into consideration the primacy of the decisions of the High Court in the matters relating to judicial officers. There is no dearth of the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the opinion of the High Court shall prevail.
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R M Doshit - Full Document

Dayanand Singh vs The Government Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 2014

The State Government although has relied upon some parts of the judgment in the matter of Bal Mukund Sah (supra) and some orders issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Malik Mazhar Sultan, has not taken into consideration the primacy of the decisions of the High Court in the matters relating to judicial officers. There is no dearth of the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the opinion of the High Court shall prevail.
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R M Doshit - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next