Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.33 seconds)

Maharaj Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 2 November, 1976

60. Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. ( Vide Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. Advocate General of Maharashtra, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P., Ghulam Qwadir v. Special Tribunal and Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Applicances Co.) The High Court failed to appreciate that it was a case of political rivalry. The case of the appellant has not been considered in the correct perspective at all.
Supreme Court of India Cites 219 - Cited by 230 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Ghulam Qadir vs Special Tribunal & Ors on 3 October, 2001

60. Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. ( Vide Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. Advocate General of Maharashtra, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P., Ghulam Qwadir v. Special Tribunal and Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Applicances Co.) The High Court failed to appreciate that it was a case of political rivalry. The case of the appellant has not been considered in the correct perspective at all.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 155 - Full Document

Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba vs Tosiba Appliances Co. & Ors on 16 May, 2008

60. Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. ( Vide Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. Advocate General of Maharashtra, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P., Ghulam Qwadir v. Special Tribunal and Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Applicances Co.) The High Court failed to appreciate that it was a case of political rivalry. The case of the appellant has not been considered in the correct perspective at all.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 33 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next