Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.06 seconds)
Uma vs The Chairman on 6 January, 2026 cites

Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 17 September, 1991

“We proceed on the premise that the appellants had not obtained any stay of the publication of the declaration but since the High Court in some of the cases has, in fact, prohibited them as extracted hereinbefore, from publication of the declaration, necessarily, when the Court has not restricted the declaration in the impugned orders in support of the petitioners therein, the officers had to hold back their hands till the matters were disposed of. In fact, this Court has given extended meaning to the orders of stay or proceeding in various cases, namely, Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka 17, Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka and Roshnara Begum v. Union of India20. The words "stay of the action or proceeding" have been widely interpreted by this Court and mean that any type of the enquiry under Section 5- A was put in issue and the declaration under Section 6 was 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm ) W.P(MD)No.29954 of 2025 questioned, necessarily unless the Court holds that enquiry under Section 5-A was properly conducted and the declaration published under Section 6 was valid, it would not be open to the officers to proceed further into the matter. As a consequence, the stay granted in respect of some would be applicable to others also who had not obtained stay in that behalf.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 58 - M H Kania - Full Document

Hansraj H. Jain vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 14 July, 1993

“We proceed on the premise that the appellants had not obtained any stay of the publication of the declaration but since the High Court in some of the cases has, in fact, prohibited them as extracted hereinbefore, from publication of the declaration, necessarily, when the Court has not restricted the declaration in the impugned orders in support of the petitioners therein, the officers had to hold back their hands till the matters were disposed of. In fact, this Court has given extended meaning to the orders of stay or proceeding in various cases, namely, Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka 17, Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka and Roshnara Begum v. Union of India20. The words "stay of the action or proceeding" have been widely interpreted by this Court and mean that any type of the enquiry under Section 5- A was put in issue and the declaration under Section 6 was 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm ) W.P(MD)No.29954 of 2025 questioned, necessarily unless the Court holds that enquiry under Section 5-A was properly conducted and the declaration published under Section 6 was valid, it would not be open to the officers to proceed further into the matter. As a consequence, the stay granted in respect of some would be applicable to others also who had not obtained stay in that behalf.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 31 - G N Ray - Full Document

Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 1993

“We proceed on the premise that the appellants had not obtained any stay of the publication of the declaration but since the High Court in some of the cases has, in fact, prohibited them as extracted hereinbefore, from publication of the declaration, necessarily, when the Court has not restricted the declaration in the impugned orders in support of the petitioners therein, the officers had to hold back their hands till the matters were disposed of. In fact, this Court has given extended meaning to the orders of stay or proceeding in various cases, namely, Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka 17, Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka and Roshnara Begum v. Union of India20. The words "stay of the action or proceeding" have been widely interpreted by this Court and mean that any type of the enquiry under Section 5- A was put in issue and the declaration under Section 6 was 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm ) W.P(MD)No.29954 of 2025 questioned, necessarily unless the Court holds that enquiry under Section 5-A was properly conducted and the declaration published under Section 6 was valid, it would not be open to the officers to proceed further into the matter. As a consequence, the stay granted in respect of some would be applicable to others also who had not obtained stay in that behalf.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 34 - G N Ray - Full Document

Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 30 March, 1993

“We proceed on the premise that the appellants had not obtained any stay of the publication of the declaration but since the High Court in some of the cases has, in fact, prohibited them as extracted hereinbefore, from publication of the declaration, necessarily, when the Court has not restricted the declaration in the impugned orders in support of the petitioners therein, the officers had to hold back their hands till the matters were disposed of. In fact, this Court has given extended meaning to the orders of stay or proceeding in various cases, namely, Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka 17, Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka and Roshnara Begum v. Union of India20. The words "stay of the action or proceeding" have been widely interpreted by this Court and mean that any type of the enquiry under Section 5- A was put in issue and the declaration under Section 6 was 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm ) W.P(MD)No.29954 of 2025 questioned, necessarily unless the Court holds that enquiry under Section 5-A was properly conducted and the declaration published under Section 6 was valid, it would not be open to the officers to proceed further into the matter. As a consequence, the stay granted in respect of some would be applicable to others also who had not obtained stay in that behalf.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 122 - K Singh - Full Document

G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) Byl.Rs. ... vs Govt. Of Karnataka And Anr on 29 April, 1991

“We proceed on the premise that the appellants had not obtained any stay of the publication of the declaration but since the High Court in some of the cases has, in fact, prohibited them as extracted hereinbefore, from publication of the declaration, necessarily, when the Court has not restricted the declaration in the impugned orders in support of the petitioners therein, the officers had to hold back their hands till the matters were disposed of. In fact, this Court has given extended meaning to the orders of stay or proceeding in various cases, namely, Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka 17, Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka and Roshnara Begum v. Union of India20. The words "stay of the action or proceeding" have been widely interpreted by this Court and mean that any type of the enquiry under Section 5- A was put in issue and the declaration under Section 6 was 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 01:20:01 pm ) W.P(MD)No.29954 of 2025 questioned, necessarily unless the Court holds that enquiry under Section 5-A was properly conducted and the declaration published under Section 6 was valid, it would not be open to the officers to proceed further into the matter. As a consequence, the stay granted in respect of some would be applicable to others also who had not obtained stay in that behalf.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 160 - M H Kania - Full Document
1   2 Next