Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 64 (0.33 seconds)

Rama And Company vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 3 April, 2007

85. (17) In the case of Rama and Co. (supra), the Apex Court has dismissed the SLP by a speaking order though giving short reasoning, hence, it will be covered in category No. (v) mentioned by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, i.e., if the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., giving reasons for refusing the grant of leave. In such circumstances, there are only two implications, firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and, secondly other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the Court, Tribunal or Authority in any proceeding subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - S Yadav - Full Document

State Of M.P. And Ors. vs M.S. Wakankar And Anr. on 2 November, 2006

The view taken by the Division Bench in Rama and Company (supra), was referred to a Larger Bench as there was a conflict of opinion amongst the decisions in the cases of Rama and Company (supra), State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.S. Wakankar 2007(1) M.P.H.T. 298 (DB) : 2007(1) M PLJ 99 and Shrimad Shiva Dubey (Jhira) v. Sumit Ranjan Dubey W.A. No. 310/2006, decided on 14-8-2006.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next