Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Siliguri Municipality & Others vs Amalendu Das & Others on 6 January, 1984
12.1. Again in the case of Siliguri Municipality (supra) so referred by
Page No.# 10/13
Mr. Sarma, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the main purpose of passing an
interim order is to evolve a workable formula or a workable arrangement to the
extent called for by the demands of the situation keeping in mind the
presumption regarding the constitutionality of the legislation and the
vulnerability of the challenge, only in order that no irreparable injury is
occasioned. The Court has, therefore, to strike a delicate balance after
considering the pros and cons of the matter lest larger public interest is not
jeopardized and institutional embarrassment is eschewed.
State Of U.P vs U.P. State Law Officers Assn on 25 January, 1993
(ii) State of U.P. and Ors. vs. U.P. State Law Officers
Association and Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 204;
M/S Amrit Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd. ... vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 31 October, 2019
11.1. The issue, as to whether Clause 3 of Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is mandatory or directory, has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of
U.P. & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 207, wherein, it was
observed that it is unnecessary for the Supreme Court to decide whether clause
(3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is mandatory or directory. Further,
it was observed that on its plain reading, clause (3) is applicable only when an
interim relief is granted without furnishing a copy of the writ petition along with
supporting documents to the opposite party and without hearing the opposite
party. Even assuming that clause (3) is not directory, it provides for an
automatic vacation of interim relief only if the aggrieved party makes an
application for vacating the interim relief and when the application for vacating
stay is not heard within the time specified. Clause (3) will not apply when an
Page No.# 9/13
interim order in a writ petition under Article 226 is passed after the service of a
copy of the writ petition on all concerned parties and after giving them an
opportunity of being heard. It applies only to ex-parte ad interim orders.
M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 April, 2021
12. It is to be noted here that in the case of M/S Neeharika,
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State Of Maharashtra, reported in
AIR 2021 Supreme Court 1918, Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised the
requirement of giving reason as to why it is necessary to pass an interim order,
more particularly when the High Court is exercising the extraordinary and
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is however a fact that the above proposition of law was
laid down in the case of a petition for quashing of an FIR. But, the requirement
of giving reason in passing interim order, to the considered opinion of this Court,
is applicable in all cases irrespective of criminal petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
State Of Assam And Ors. vs Makhan Pegu And Ors. on 2 February, 2006
13. In the instant case, apparently no such reason has been assigned for
passing the interim order of stay. The requirement of prima-facie case, and the
balance of convenience and irreparable loss has not been discussed. Even
though, a prima-facie case appears to be made out in favour of the
petitioner/opposite party No.1 herein on account of the impugned removal order
being passed by the proforma opposite party No.3 without giving a notice or
opportunity of being heard, which seems to be a requirement in respect of
tenure post in view of the University Grants Commission (Conferment of
Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards
in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2023, wherein at Regulation 12 the term
of 5 years has been prescribed for the Governing body and the members, as
observed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Makhan Pegu and
Ors. (supra), so referred by Mr. Mahanta, yet, it appears that while the
impugned order was passed on 20.06.2025, the petitioner has approached this
Court on 19.08.2025, after two months and the interim order of stay was
granted on 22.08.2025. Mr. Mahanta however, submits that the
petitioner/opposite party No.1 herein has not been furnished with a copy of the
said order and it was not even marked to him also and he had received it only
Page No.# 11/13
through WhatsApp. Thus, there appears to be some explanation for such delay.
But, existence of a prima-facie case alone is not sufficient to grant interim relief,
unless existence of other two requirements, such as balance of convenience and
irreparable loss are successfully demonstrated.
Jitendra Nath Sarma vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 24 March, 2015
(ii) Jogendra Nath Sharma vs. State of Assam and Ors, reported
in 2018 Supreme (Gau) 440.
Uttam Chandra Pathak vs Jogendra Nath Sarma And 4 Ors on 5 April, 2019
13.4. Notably, in the Review Petition No. 26/2018 (Uttam Chandra Pathak v.
Jogendra Nath Sarma & Ors.), so referred by Mr. Sarma, learned Senior counsel
for the applicant, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has stayed the interim order
being passed in WP(C) No. 558/2018, wherein it was directed that the order of
removal of the petitioner of said writ petition, from the President of Governing
Body of the College, shall not be given effect to, till final order is passed, and
when it was brought to the notice of the Court that writ petitioner was already
removed and review petitioner was holding the post of president.
1