Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.28 seconds)
The Registrar Karnataka Lokayuktha vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 25 January, 2022
cites
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 37 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The State Of Orissa vs Madan Gopal Rungta.The State Of ... on 25 October, 1951
In other words, as a
general rule, infringement of some legal right or
prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the
petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi
in the matter, (see State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal
Rungta [AIR 1952 SC 12 : 1952 SCR 28] ; Calcutta
Gas Co. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044 : 1962
Supp (3) SCR 1] ; Ram Umeshwari Suthoo v. Member,
Board of Revenue, Orissa [(1967) 1 SCA 413] ; Gadde
Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P. [AIR 1966
SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172] ; State of Orissa v.
Rajasaheb Chandanmall [(1973) 3 SCC 739] ;
Satyanarayana Sinha Dr v. S. Lal & Co. [(1973) 2 SCC
696 : (1973) SCC (Cri) 1002] ).
The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 5 February, 1962
In other words, as a
general rule, infringement of some legal right or
prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the
petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi
in the matter, (see State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal
Rungta [AIR 1952 SC 12 : 1952 SCR 28] ; Calcutta
Gas Co. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044 : 1962
Supp (3) SCR 1] ; Ram Umeshwari Suthoo v. Member,
Board of Revenue, Orissa [(1967) 1 SCA 413] ; Gadde
Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P. [AIR 1966
SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172] ; State of Orissa v.
Rajasaheb Chandanmall [(1973) 3 SCC 739] ;
Satyanarayana Sinha Dr v. S. Lal & Co. [(1973) 2 SCC
696 : (1973) SCC (Cri) 1002] ).
Satyanarayana Sinha vs M/S S. Lal And Company (Pvt.) Ltd on 10 September, 1973
In other words, as a
general rule, infringement of some legal right or
prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the
petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi
in the matter, (see State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal
Rungta [AIR 1952 SC 12 : 1952 SCR 28] ; Calcutta
Gas Co. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044 : 1962
Supp (3) SCR 1] ; Ram Umeshwari Suthoo v. Member,
Board of Revenue, Orissa [(1967) 1 SCA 413] ; Gadde
Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P. [AIR 1966
SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172] ; State of Orissa v.
Rajasaheb Chandanmall [(1973) 3 SCC 739] ;
Satyanarayana Sinha Dr v. S. Lal & Co. [(1973) 2 SCC
696 : (1973) SCC (Cri) 1002] ).
Ayyaswami Gounder And Ors vs Munnuswamy Gounder And Ors on 25 September, 1984
He relied on the Decision of
the Supreme Court in Ayyaswami Gounder v.
Muniswamy Gounder and Shridhar v. Nagar
Palika, Naunpur14 to contend that a Single
Judge not agreeing with an earlier Decision of
another Single Judge of the same Court, should
refer the matter to a larger Bench and propriety
and decorum did not warrant the Single Judge
to hold contrary to the earlier Decision of the
same High Court. There is no doubt that a Single
Judge is bound by the Decision of another Single
Judge of the same Court. But where the earlier
Decision has been stayed, it means that the
Decision is not in operation, but kept in
abeyance and should not be acted upon. Thus,
26
where the earlier Decision of the Single Judge is
stayed in appeal, there is in effect no Decision to
be followed. Therefore the contention that I am
bound to follow the earlier Decision or refer the
matter to a larger Bench is untenable."
Shridhar Son Of Ram Dular vs Nagar Palika, Jaunpur And Ors on 17 November, 1989
He relied on the Decision of
the Supreme Court in Ayyaswami Gounder v.
Muniswamy Gounder and Shridhar v. Nagar
Palika, Naunpur14 to contend that a Single
Judge not agreeing with an earlier Decision of
another Single Judge of the same Court, should
refer the matter to a larger Bench and propriety
and decorum did not warrant the Single Judge
to hold contrary to the earlier Decision of the
same High Court. There is no doubt that a Single
Judge is bound by the Decision of another Single
Judge of the same Court. But where the earlier
Decision has been stayed, it means that the
Decision is not in operation, but kept in
abeyance and should not be acted upon. Thus,
26
where the earlier Decision of the Single Judge is
stayed in appeal, there is in effect no Decision to
be followed. Therefore the contention that I am
bound to follow the earlier Decision or refer the
matter to a larger Bench is untenable."