Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd vs Shankarprasad on 19 July, 1999
In view of this clear and categorical declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be neither possible nor proper to entertain the argument that the earlier judgments in UMAJI KESHAO (supra) or in LOKMAT NEWSPAPERS (supra) which were expressly referred by the Supreme Court in KANHAIYALAL (supra) purported to declare or pronounce a different proposition of law.
Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar And ... vs Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shah And Others on 30 July, 1991
SCC 401, Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Watve, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 9 and Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudaliyar v. Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 11.
Umaji Keshao Meshram And Ors. vs Radhikabai, Widow Of Anandrao ... on 14 March, 1986
This Court held as aforesaid in view of the decisions of this Court in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, 1986 Supp.
Kanhaiyalal Agrawal & Ors vs The Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar ... on 13 September, 2001
Therefore, respectfully following the later judgment of the Supreme Court in KANHAIYALAL (supra), we hold that the decisive factor in consideration of maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal is not the Article under which the petition was filed or the Articles which were invoked by the petitioner, but it is the Article under which the jurisdiction was exercised by the learned Single Judge in deciding the matter. The clear words in the aforesaid judgment stating that "if the jurisdiction is exercised under Article 227" leaves no room for doubt about the proposition that it is the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge which is decisive in the matter. If the appeal were to be entertained on the contention that the learned Single Judge ought to have treated the petition as the one invoking Article 226 and could have decided the same only under that Article, it would amount to entertaining the appeal despite the embargo on its maintainability.
Umaji Keshao Meshram & Ors vs Radhikabai W/O Anandrao Banapurkar & ... on 14 March, 1986
In view of this clear and categorical declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be neither possible nor proper to entertain the argument that the earlier judgments in UMAJI KESHAO (supra) or in LOKMAT NEWSPAPERS (supra) which were expressly referred by the Supreme Court in KANHAIYALAL (supra) purported to declare or pronounce a different proposition of law.
1