Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.31 seconds)
State Of Gujarat vs Uttamchand Hathichand Shah And Ors. on 27 November, 2006 cites

I.C. Golak Nath And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 27 February, 1967

In view of the later judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarwan Kumar (supra), after referring to L.C. Golak Nath (supra) which was relied upon by this Court in Arvind Kumar Trikamlal Raval (supra), and in absence of any indication in the Division Bench judgment, the doctrine of prospective overruling could not be applied in the facts of the present cases so as to uphold the impugned orders prematurely discharging the accused. Even if the court were to have any discretion which could be exercised in favour of the accused persons, there is no ground to exercise such discretion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 228 - Cited by 337 - Full Document

State Of Kerala Etc. Etc vs Alaserry Mohammed Etc. Etc on 10 February, 1978

The court observed, after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Alaserry Mohammed 1978 (1) FAC 145 and in Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra 1975 (1) FAC 321 (FB), that the Supreme Court had leaned towards the doctrine of prospective overruling because, though the earlier view which was holding the field for a pretty long time came to be altered, the Supreme Court thought it fit and proper not to interfere with the orders of acquittal in those cases which were decided before the alteration of the legal position consequent to the pronouncement by the larger bench.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 59 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamanani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 1974

The court observed, after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Alaserry Mohammed 1978 (1) FAC 145 and in Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra 1975 (1) FAC 321 (FB), that the Supreme Court had leaned towards the doctrine of prospective overruling because, though the earlier view which was holding the field for a pretty long time came to be altered, the Supreme Court thought it fit and proper not to interfere with the orders of acquittal in those cases which were decided before the alteration of the legal position consequent to the pronouncement by the larger bench.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 28 - A N Ray - Full Document

Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation vs Cherukattil Gopalan And Anr on 6 May, 1971

But in view of the fact that the appellant has argued the appeal only as a test case and does not challenge the acquittal of the respondents, we merely set aside the order and judgment of the High Court. But we may make it clear that apart from holding the respondents technically guilty, we are not setting aside the order of acquittal passed in that case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 44 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Sarwan Kumar & Anr vs Madan Lal Aggarwal on 6 February, 2003

In view of the later judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarwan Kumar (supra), after referring to L.C. Golak Nath (supra) which was relied upon by this Court in Arvind Kumar Trikamlal Raval (supra), and in absence of any indication in the Division Bench judgment, the doctrine of prospective overruling could not be applied in the facts of the present cases so as to uphold the impugned orders prematurely discharging the accused. Even if the court were to have any discretion which could be exercised in favour of the accused persons, there is no ground to exercise such discretion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 160 - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs M/S. Surinder Kumar & Co. & Ors on 11 December, 1996

It is trite that a precedent is an authority only for what it actually decided and not what logically flows from it. It was earlier observed by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar that a decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law. None was entitled to rely upon an order of the Supreme Court which directed a temporary employee to be regularized in his service without assigning reasons. It had to be presumed that for special grounds which must have been available to the temporary employees in particular cases, they were entitled to the relief granted. Merely because grounds were not mentioned in the judgment of the court, it could not be understood that it was passed without an adequate legal basis therefor. It was held to be futile to suggest that if the Supreme Court had issued an order, which apparently seemed to be similar to the impugned order, the High Court could also do so. The Constitution has, by Article 142, empowered the Supreme Court to make such orders as may be necessary 'for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it', which authority the High Court did not enjoy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 277 - Full Document
1   2 Next