Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
T. Anil Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By ... on 10 December, 1993 cites

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980

29. With reference to Column 12 of the attestation form, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner contended that his client was never arrested factually and, therefore, the answer given by him in Column 12 as "NEVER" is factually correct and what all the attestation form is seeking is a factual information and not a deemed arrest arrived at by invoking legal fiction. Whatever may be the factual position, the interpretation put upon Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Full Court is legally correct and it is based on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab (2 supra). Therefore, it is not possible for us to say that the view arrived at on 4-10-1993 at the meeting of the Full Court as communicated by the Registrar (Admn.) of the High Court on 6-10-1993 to the Government is legally not sustainable. Having regard to the same, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 8067 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Chandra Mohan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 8 August, 1966

If in any particular case, the State Government finds it difficult to accept the recommendations of the High Court and has good and weighty reasons in support of the same, it should communicate its views to the High Court and seek the views of the High Court thereon. If, in such circumstances, the High Court is convinced that there are good and weighty reasons for the objections on the part of the State Government, it will reconsider the matter and communicate its views to the State Government. Efficient and proper judicial administration being the main object of judicial appointments, there should not be any difficulty in arriving at consensus between the High Court and the State Government and the problem should be approached in a detached manner. The above principles have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1987 and M.M. Gupta v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, .
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 99 - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs A. Lakshmikutty & Ors on 10 November, 1986

In State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmikutty, , it was held that when a recommendation was made by the High Court to the State Government for the appointment of District Judges, if it has any objections regarding the appointment in any particular case, it is duty bound to communicate its views to the High Court eliciting the opinion of the High Court thereon and the High Court, on its part, is under a constitutional obligation under Article 233 (1) of the Constitution to express its opinion, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances thereof, to the State Government. It is not open to the Government, after recommendations of the High Court were received by it, to take an unilateral decision to reject or refuse to appoint any or all of the persons recommended by the High Court. The above decisions lay down the following insofar as it is relevant for the purpose of the present case. When recommendations are made by the High Court to the State Government in the case of appointment of District Judges under Article 233 of the Constitution, if in any particular case, the Government feels that the recommendations of the High Court are not acceptable, the State Government is bound by constitutional obligation to record its views and place them before the High Court and elicit the opinion of the High Court on its views. Then alone it can be said that the constitutional obligation on the part of the State Government is discharged. On its part, the High Court, on receipt of the views of the State Government, must express its own views on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 125 - A P Sen - Full Document

Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 6 October, 1993

26. Learned Counsel on the basis of the decision reported in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India (1 supra) contended that the expression of opinion by the constitutional authorities should be in writing and that there being no record in writing of the opinion of the High Court as such, it is submitted that there is no expression of its views by the High Court when the matter was referred by the State Government to it. We are of the opinion that the said requirement is also satisfied in the present case having regard to the fact that the decision of the Full Court on its administrative side arrived at on 4-10-1993 was communicated by the Registrar (Admn.) in writing to the State Government after obtaining specific approval of the Chief Justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 163 - Cited by 385 - J S Verma - Full Document
1