Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)Section 17 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Rajasthan Stamp Act 1998
Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs U.O.I. And Others on 6 August, 1999
In Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India, (1999) 7 SCC 409, the Supreme Court observed that wrong application or interpretation of law is not a misconduct inasmuch as wrong decision is subject to judicial supervision in appeal. The observation reads thus:-
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S. Muthuramu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 February, 2008
37. This Court in this case referred to above was pleased to lay down as under:
Satubha K. Vaghela vs Moosa Raza, The District Development ... on 21 February, 1968
This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Supdt., Central Rly., Nagpur Division, Nagpur (61 B.L.R. 1569) and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza (10 G.L.R. 23). The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Strouds Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:
M.A. Kalam vs The Registrar (Management) High Court ... on 1 April, 1996
8. Applying the principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, particularly when there is no motive or recklessness attributed against the petitioner and no misconduct is committed by the petitioner, I hold, the charge as framed is not maintainable against the petitioner, who is a quasi-judicial authority. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari And ... vs Central Railway (Divisional ... on 31 July, 1959
This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Supdt., Central Rly., Nagpur Division, Nagpur (61 B.L.R. 1569) and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza (10 G.L.R. 23). The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Strouds Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:
Ramesh Chander Singh vs High Court Of Allahabad & Anr on 26 February, 2007
(b) Whether the disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against a judicial officer, who granted bail exercising discretion while discharging the Judicial function, was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2007) 2 SCC (Criminal) 266 (Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad). In paragraph 12, the Supreme Court held as follows: