Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)
Rajesh Tyagi And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru S.P. And 2 Others on 16 July, 2015 cites

Manju Kumari And Anr. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 22 March, 2006

5. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. The relied upon judgment has no application to the present case and is distinguishable. In the said case, the Drug Inspector has not participated in the raid and it was made by police officials. However, here the case is different. Learned counsel for petitioners could not plead that in this case, there has been committed same illegality and infirmity by the respondent authorities as was done in the case of Manju Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra).
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - M Mishra - Full Document

Hindustan Lever Ltd. And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 26 February, 1999

12. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision reported in 1997 (1) BLJ 899 (Hindustan Liver Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) wherein it has been held "that in my opinion the prosecution can be instituted by filing a complaint by the Drugs Inspector and the police has no jurisdiction to register a first information report and investigate into the offence under Act. The investigation by the police is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed."
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 7 - M Katju - Full Document

The State Of Orissa vs Madan Gopal Rungta.The State Of ... on 25 October, 1951

6. Once the writ petition is dismissed, this Court has no power to pass any order in the nature of interim or interlocutory order. The Apex Court has deprecated such practice and has held, if final relief has been declined, no interim relief/interim order should be granted to petitioners. The first such case is State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta AIR 1952 SC 12. Therein High Court declined to grant final relief on the ground that there was an alternative remedy available to petitioner and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition relegating petitioner to avail alternative remedy, but then observing that before filing suit, 60 days' notice under Section 80 C.P.C. will have to be given, which will take some time, an interim relief was granted. Deprecating this, Apex Court said that grant of relief under Article 226 is founded only on its decision that a right of the aggrieved party has been infringed. Therefore, existence of right is foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. When the Court has decided nothing at all in respect to rights of parties, it would not be justified to grant any relief, final or interim, as the case may be, since Article 226 does not confer such jurisdiction. In para 6 of the judgment, the Court said:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 604 - H J Kania - Full Document
1