Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 100 (1.22 seconds)
Documents citing T. Sudhakar Prasad vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors on 13 December, 2000

(Service Of All Notices On The vs Shri B.N. Vaish on 28 June, 2013

54. It is my most respectful submission, with utmost humility at my command, that the Honble Apex Courts ratio decidendi in T. Sudhakar Prasad case (supra) perhaps does not encompass such issuance of stay orders in respect of the contempt proceedings initiated by any Bench of this Tribunal, as it had advised the High Courts to exercise self-restraint from interfering with the pending proceedings, and not to upset the interim or interlocutory orders of the Tribunals in its contempt jurisdiction.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 143 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Y.Adinarayana Murthy, vs Honble Ap Administrative Tribunal, on 1 May, 2018

Though Sri T. Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel, would place reliance on T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ((2001) 1 SCC 516) in support of his contention that this Court would have no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution over the contempt proceedings initiated by the Tribunal, we find that the Supreme Court observed in the above decision that while holding proceedings under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal remains a Tribunal and would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution subject to the well-established rules of self-restraint governing the discretion of the High Court to interfere with the pending proceedings before the Tribunal.
Telangana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P V Kumar - Full Document

P.V. Krishnaiah vs The Honble A.P. Administrative ... on 1 May, 2018

Though Sri T. Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel, would place reliance on T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ((2001) 1 SCC 516) in support of his contention that this Court would have no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution over the contempt proceedings initiated by the Tribunal, we find that the Supreme Court observed in the above decision that while holding proceedings under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal remains a Tribunal and would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution subject to the well-established rules of self-restraint governing the discretion of the High Court to interfere with the pending proceedings before the Tribunal.
Telangana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P V Kumar - Full Document

P.V. Krishnaiah vs The Honble A.P. Administrative ... on 1 May, 2018

Though Sri T. Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel, would place reliance on T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ((2001) 1 SCC 516) in support of his contention that this Court would have no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution over the contempt proceedings initiated by the Tribunal, we find that the Supreme Court observed in the above decision that while holding proceedings under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal remains a Tribunal and would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution subject to the well-established rules of self-restraint governing the discretion of the High Court to interfere with the pending proceedings before the Tribunal.
Telangana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P V Kumar - Full Document

Y.Adinarayana Murthy, vs Honble Ap Administrative Tribunal, on 1 May, 2018

Though Sri T. Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel, would place reliance on T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ((2001) 1 SCC 516) in support of his contention that this Court would have no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution over the contempt proceedings initiated by the Tribunal, we find that the Supreme Court observed in the above decision that while holding proceedings under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal remains a Tribunal and would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution subject to the well-established rules of self-restraint governing the discretion of the High Court to interfere with the pending proceedings before the Tribunal.
Telangana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P V Kumar - Full Document

Dinesh Singh vs Dr. Ajay Bhushan Pandey & Ors. on 26 April, 2021

9. The only contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that since neither on the date when the DPC was held nor on the date when OA No.3604/2015 was allowed and the respondents directed to promote the petitioner, was the petitioner under suspension or under prosecution or any disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against him, the subsequent FIRs registered against the petitioner and the charge memo issued to the W.P.(C) 2852/2021 Page 4 of 14 petitioner, could not come in the way of the promotion of the petitioner. Reference, without citing, is made to Union of India Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar (2013) 4 SCC 161, Union of India Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak (2007) 6 SCC 704, Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India 146 (2008) DLT 588, Harsh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Punjab (2017) 4 SCC 366 and to T. Sudhakar Prasad Vs. Govt. of A.P. (2001) 1 SCC 516.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Naveen Kumar Agarwal vs K Kamala on 12 November, 2021

In Sudhakar Prasad vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors5, the Supreme Court once again declared that the powers of contempt are inherent in nature and the provisions of the Constitution only recognize the said pre-existing situation. That the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are in addition to and not in derogation of Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution. The provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 cannot be used for limiting or regulating the exercise of jurisdiction contemplated by the said two Articles. The Apex Court also made further observation that, the High Court cannot create or assume power to inflict a new type of punishment other than the one recognized and accepted by Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next