Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Paresh Yadav And 6 Ors. vs State Of U.P.& 6 Ors. on 8 August, 2014

Zila Congress Committee, Budaun And ... vs Girish Kumar Juneja on 19 April, 2019

Following the said principles, a Full Bench of this Court adjudicated the reference laid before it in Paresh Yadav and others vs. State of U.P. and others15 by holding that the summary dismissal of Special Leave Petition against a judgment of Division Bench of this Court will not result in merger of the order passed by this Court as regards the statement of law or the reasons indicated in the judgment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Others vs Chhiddi & Another on 24 September, 2015

A Full Bench of this Court in Paresh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.37 also examined this issue. Of the three questions that were referred to the Full Bench, one was regarding the effect of the order of the Supreme Court dismissing the Appeal filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Court. After referring to the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in S. Shanmugavel Nadar, the Full Bench ultimately observed as follows:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 8 - D Gupta - Full Document

Pachimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. ... vs Electricity Ombudsman Iiird Floor Neda ... on 27 November, 2015

Shri Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has contended that the effect of striking down of any provision will be that it never came on the statute book and is of no consequence to any body. He has cited the case decided by this Court in support of his submission reported in [2003 (1) AWC 787, Paresh Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - D K Upadhyaya - Full Document

Dr. Archana Mishra And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 10 October, 2018

Sri R.K. Ojha while reiterating the aforesaid submissions has additionally placed reliance upon a decision of the Full Bench of the Court in Paresh Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P. and others7 to contend that the doctrine of merger has no application to the facts of the present case. According to Sri Ojha this precept is neither of universal nor unlimited application. Reiterating the contentions noticed above with respect to the order of 19 January 2017 not constituting a binding precedent, Sri Ojha submitted that it is only from the enunciation of the law as may be evidenced from a decision of the Supreme Court that it can be held that the law has been declared.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - M K Gupta - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Best Laboratories Pvt Ltd on 19 December, 2025

In support of his contention that the issues that have not been expressly determined by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, and that the same could not operate as binding law, the learned counsel for the Union of India has relied upon the Judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another4 [paragraphs 2-5 and 7], Secunderabad Club v. CIT5 [paragraphs 14-17, 23 and 24], Odisha State Financial Corporation v Vigyan Chemical Industries & Ors.6 [paragraph 13], Kunhayammed and Ors v. State of Kerala and Anr7 [paragraphs 27 and 40] and the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in Paresh Yadav & Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors. 8 [paragraphs 2, 6-8, 31-32].
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C/M Field Marshal General Manekshaw ... vs State Of U.P. Through Addl. Chief ... on 4 February, 2020

54. The effect of an SLP being dismissed as withdrawn or being dismissed in limine has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Paresh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2015 (Alld.) 10. The Full Bench of this Court after considering all the law on the subject has held that dismissal of Special Leave Petition as withdrawn or disposal of the same by making observations regarding the waiver of costs etc. would not amount to the judgment under appeal having merged with the judgment of the Supreme Court. Such judgment cannot be said to have attained finality, or that it was affirmed by the Supreme Court to become a binding precedent, preventing the reconsideration of the issue on merits by a competent Court."
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1