Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.27 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 7 March, 2007
In A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others, (2007) 4 SCC 221, this Court observed as under:
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Madras vs Madurai Mills Co., Ltd on 4 October, 1966
In State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 681 this Court held that the doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of rigid and universal application and it cannot be said that where-ever there are two orders, one by the inferior authority and the other by a superior authority, passed in an appeal or revision there is a fusion or merger of two orders irrespective of the subject-matter of the appellate or revisional order and the scope of the appeal or revision contemplated by the particular statute. The application of the doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order in each case and the scope of the statutory provisions conferring the appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
Article 132 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
In Kunhayahmed (supra), a three Judge Bench of this Court while elucidating the doctrine of merger held that once `leave' is granted while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the doors of the appellate jurisdiction are opened. It does not matter whether reasons are given or not. The doctrine of merger is attracted as soon as `leave' has been granted in a special leave petition.
Section 20 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Rup Diamonds & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 January, 1989
In M/s. Rup Diamonds v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 674, the law declared by this Court is that it cannot be said that the mere rejection of secial leave petition could, by itself, be construed as the imprimatur of this Court on the correctness of the decision sought to be appealed against.
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 July, 1989
In Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187 : (AIR 1990 SC 334) : (1990 Lab IC 324), and Yogendra Narayan Chowdhury v. Union of India, 1996 (7) SCC 1 : (1996 AIR SCW 57) : (AIR 1996 SC 57) : (1996 Lab IC 759), both decisions by Two-judges Benches, this Court has held that a non-speaking order of dismissal of a special leave petition cannot lead to assumption that it had necessarily decided by implication the correctness of the decision under challenge.