Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Yawar Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 May, 2018 cites

Sc Garg vs Union Of India And Another on 6 August, 2012

A plain reading of aforesaid passage shows that after considering the judgment of Mithilesh Garg (supra) this Court opined that the question of locus to file revision under Section 90 was not settled in the case of Mithilesh Garg (supra). Admittedly, the revisional authority at present is not functional. Thus, it cannot be said that present petition is not maintainable. The time of root is also not such which can be a reason for vacation of stay. Thus, the application for vacation of stay is rejected.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 18 - S Kant - Full Document

Nagar Rice & Flour Miills & Ors vs N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros. & Ors on 27 February, 1970

(1992) 1 SCC 168, The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and others Vs. N. Teekappa Gowda and Bros and others AIR 1971 SC 246, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others AIR 1976 SC 578, the order dated 30th June, 2015 passed in WP No.9845/2014 in the matter of Dilip Manglani Vs. State of MP and 22nd November, 2017 passed in WP No.12662/2017 in the matter of Ravindra Nath Tripathi Vs. State of MP and another, but these judgments mainly relate to the right of the operator to file objection, but counsel for (2) petitioner has failed to point out from any of these judgments that the issue relating to locus to file revision U/s 90 has been settled in his favour by these judgments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 174 - J C Shah - Full Document

Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors on 19 December, 1975

(1992) 1 SCC 168, The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and others Vs. N. Teekappa Gowda and Bros and others AIR 1971 SC 246, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others AIR 1976 SC 578, the order dated 30th June, 2015 passed in WP No.9845/2014 in the matter of Dilip Manglani Vs. State of MP and 22nd November, 2017 passed in WP No.12662/2017 in the matter of Ravindra Nath Tripathi Vs. State of MP and another, but these judgments mainly relate to the right of the operator to file objection, but counsel for (2) petitioner has failed to point out from any of these judgments that the issue relating to locus to file revision U/s 90 has been settled in his favour by these judgments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 678 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Dilip Manglani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 June, 2015

(1992) 1 SCC 168, The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and others Vs. N. Teekappa Gowda and Bros and others AIR 1971 SC 246, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others AIR 1976 SC 578, the order dated 30th June, 2015 passed in WP No.9845/2014 in the matter of Dilip Manglani Vs. State of MP and 22nd November, 2017 passed in WP No.12662/2017 in the matter of Ravindra Nath Tripathi Vs. State of MP and another, but these judgments mainly relate to the right of the operator to file objection, but counsel for (2) petitioner has failed to point out from any of these judgments that the issue relating to locus to file revision U/s 90 has been settled in his favour by these judgments.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ravindra Nath Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 October, 2014

(1992) 1 SCC 168, The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and others Vs. N. Teekappa Gowda and Bros and others AIR 1971 SC 246, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others AIR 1976 SC 578, the order dated 30th June, 2015 passed in WP No.9845/2014 in the matter of Dilip Manglani Vs. State of MP and 22nd November, 2017 passed in WP No.12662/2017 in the matter of Ravindra Nath Tripathi Vs. State of MP and another, but these judgments mainly relate to the right of the operator to file objection, but counsel for (2) petitioner has failed to point out from any of these judgments that the issue relating to locus to file revision U/s 90 has been settled in his favour by these judgments.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1