Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.71 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
General Electric Company vs Renusagar Power Company on 11 August, 1987
In GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v RENUSAGAR POWER CO., , it was held:-
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr vs Janki Saran Kailash Chandra & Anr on 23 April, 1973
"As often enough pointed by us, words and expressions used in a judgment are
not to be construed in the same manner as statutes or as word and expressions defined in statutes. We do not have any doubt that when the words, adjudication of the merits of the controversy in the suit' were used by this Court in State of U.P. v. Janki Saran Kailash Chandra, the words were not used to take in every adjudication which brought to an end the proceeding before the court in whatsoever manner but were meant to cover only such adjudication as touched upon the real dispute between the parties which gave rise to the action. Objections to adjudication of the disputes between the parties, on whatever ground, are in truth not aids to the progress of the suit but hurdles to such progress. Adjudication of such objections cannot be termed as adjudication of the merits of the controversy in the suit. As we said earlier, a broad view has to be taken of the principles involved and narrow and technical interpretation which tends, to defeat the object of the legislation must be avoided."
State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh on 21 July, 1999
In STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALDEV SINGH, , after referring to C.I.T. v SUN ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD., , it was held that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not that everything said therein constitutes a precedent. The courts are obliged to employ an intelligent technique in the use of precedents bearing it in mind that a decision of the court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it was rendered.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on 17 September, 1992
In STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALDEV SINGH, , after referring to C.I.T. v SUN ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD., , it was held that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not that everything said therein constitutes a precedent. The courts are obliged to employ an intelligent technique in the use of precedents bearing it in mind that a decision of the court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it was rendered.
Harpal Singh Chauhan And Ors. Etc vs State Of U.P on 15 June, 1993
In HARPAL SINGH CHAUHAN's case the apex court observed:
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990
32. The matter relating to termination of the law officers is also subject matter of several litigations. (See SRILEKHA VIDYARTHI v. STATE OF U.P., and STATE OF U.P. v U.P. STATE LAW OFFICERS ASSO, . What is prohibited is only a back door appointment and not an appointment of this nature.
State Of U.P vs U.P. State Law Officers Assn on 25 January, 1993
32. The matter relating to termination of the law officers is also subject matter of several litigations. (See SRILEKHA VIDYARTHI v. STATE OF U.P., and STATE OF U.P. v U.P. STATE LAW OFFICERS ASSO, . What is prohibited is only a back door appointment and not an appointment of this nature.