Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Justice Subhash B Adi vs The Secretary on 2 March, 2016 cites

Sarojini Ramaswami vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 August, 1992

Relying on the case of Sarojini Ramaswami (supra) the learned Advocate General has contended that the petitioner could challenge and invoke the writ jurisdiction only after an order of removal has been passed by his Excellency the Governor of Karnataka. But, 4 prior to reaching the said stage, the petitioner is not justified in filing the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed as not maintainable before this court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 63 - Cited by 41 - Full Document

Sub-Committee On Judicial ... vs Union Of India And Ors., Etc on 29 October, 1991

The question of the stage and the situation in which the remedy of judicial review becomes available and by whom it can be availed did not arise for consideration in the earlier case (in the case of Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability (supra) ) and, therefore, this further question which now arises before us was not dealt with therein. The real controversy in the earlier decision was whether the entire process of removal of a Judge in our constitutional scheme is parliamentary to attract the doctrine of lapse to the motion for removal of the learned Judge on dissolution of the Ninth Lok Sabha or a part thereof was statutory to which the doctrine of lapse of motions in the Parliament could have not application. It was in this context that the majority in that decision took the view that the process was statutory till the Parliament takes up the motion for consideration on a finding of 'guilty' being made by the Inquiry Committee in its report which is submitted to the Parliament; and the Ninth Lok Sabha having been dissolved before commencement of the parliamentary process, 8 there was no question of the motion lapsing at that stage which was statutory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 63 - Cited by 105 - B C Ray - Full Document
1