Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Ravi Shanker Tripathi Son Of Shri Sangam ... vs Board Of Revenue Through Its Chairman ... on 15 November, 2006

Ram Pratap And Others vs Gulab on 25 July, 2013

Moreover, the settled legal position is that it must not be forgotten that a matter has to be decided as per law existing on that date. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & ors. v. Indian Charge Chrome and anr. (1999) 7 SCC 314 has clearly held that the law which is to be applied in the case if the law prevailing on the date of decision making. In a catena of decisions the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the settled legal position that the matter has to be decided on the basis of law existing on the date of decision and not on the basis of the law prevailing on the date of initiation of proceeding. Since second appeal is a substantive remedy it is continuation of proceeding. Recently, in Ravi Shankar Tripathi v. Board of Revenue, [2007 (2) AWC 1327] a Division Bench of this Court has exhaustively dealt with this legal position.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - S Siddiqi - Full Document

Smt. Somati & Another vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 April, 2011

In Sridhar Tripathi vs. Board of Revenue; 1996 RD 100 on which reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the petitioner, is of no avail to him as in that case this Court held that the writ petition is maintainable for the reason it was not a pure and simple case of mutating the name of the respondent no.3 on the basis of the sale deed, but the opposite party no.3 claimed to get his name mutated on the basis of mutation order in 1968 made by the Consolidation Authorities in proceedings under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.Act. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge observed that these facts makes a sea of difference and cannot be said to be a simple case of mutation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - R Sharma - Full Document
1