Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)

P.M. Latha And Another vs State Of Kerala And Others on 5 March, 2003

12. It is apposite to mention here that a more or less similar contention was raised on the strength of L.Wasib Khan's case before a _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 9 of 18 W.P.(MD) No.21785 of 2023 Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Latha's case [Latha Vs. The State rep. by its Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Madurai Zone and others, dated 29.09.2023 passed in W.P.(MD) No.6398 of 2023] wherein the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 212 - Full Document

Shakila vs The State Represented By Its on 10 February, 2023

Incidentally, another co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Shakila Vs. The State represented by its Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Home, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 and others, passed in W.P.No.2761 of 2023 dated 10.02.2023, had rendered a liberal interpretation to Rule 40 and held that the Rules as such are not absolute. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shah Faesal vs Union Of India on 2 March, 2020

In the context of our aforesaid findings, we are of the affirmed view that the decision in Wasib Khan is not in conformity with the Rules, as well as the other binding authorities referred to by us. If that be so, it is not necessary to make a reference of Wasib Khan to a larger Bench, as held by the five Judges Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Dr Shah Faesal and others Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2020) 4 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 36 - N V Ramana - Full Document
1   2 Next