Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.44 seconds)

Rama Narang vs Ramesh Narang & Ors on 19 January, 1995

55. The Supreme Court in Rama Narang (supra) has noticed Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and Another (supra) and held that, where the objection of jurisdiction is taken, the Court should decide such question first. However, that does not mean that pending the decision on the question of jurisdiction, the Court has no jurisdiction to pass interim orders as may be called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mere objection to jurisdiction does not instantly 34 disable the Court from passing any interim orders. It can pass appropriate orders.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 157 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College ... vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 26 April, 1974

10. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that, there were attempts earlier to interpret the decree and the constitution to mean that non-Christian can be appointed as Ex-officio Governor and that such attempts failed. In this regard he has referred to the orders dated February 1, 1968, the order dated July 12, 1966 and the order dated March 1, 2000 passed by the Division Bench. Relying upon 1992 Volume 1 SCC 558 (St. Stephen's College vs. University of Delhi), 1974 SCC 717 (Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat), 2002 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 (T.M. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka), learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has contended that, since the school is a minority institution it is not permissible for the Court to interfere in its administration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 397 - A N Ray - Full Document

T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 31 October, 2002

10. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that, there were attempts earlier to interpret the decree and the constitution to mean that non-Christian can be appointed as Ex-officio Governor and that such attempts failed. In this regard he has referred to the orders dated February 1, 1968, the order dated July 12, 1966 and the order dated March 1, 2000 passed by the Division Bench. Relying upon 1992 Volume 1 SCC 558 (St. Stephen's College vs. University of Delhi), 1974 SCC 717 (Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat), 2002 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 (T.M. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka), learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has contended that, since the school is a minority institution it is not permissible for the Court to interfere in its administration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 123 - Cited by 914 - Full Document

Sk. Md. Rafique vs Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania ... on 6 January, 2020

11. Respondent no. 7 has supported the contentions raised by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 7 has contended that, Court should not interfere in the management of a minority institution. In addition to the authorities relied upon by the respondent 9 nos. 1 and 2, learned advocate appearing for the respondent 7 has relied upon 2020 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 689 (S.K. Mohd. Rafique Vs. Contai Rahamania High Madrasah) and 2020 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 705 (Christian Medical College Vellore Assn. Vs. Union of India) in such context.
Supreme Court of India Cites 104 - Cited by 41 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Christian Medical College Vellore ... vs Union Of India on 7 April, 2022

11. Respondent no. 7 has supported the contentions raised by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 7 has contended that, Court should not interfere in the management of a minority institution. In addition to the authorities relied upon by the respondent 9 nos. 1 and 2, learned advocate appearing for the respondent 7 has relied upon 2020 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 689 (S.K. Mohd. Rafique Vs. Contai Rahamania High Madrasah) and 2020 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 705 (Christian Medical College Vellore Assn. Vs. Union of India) in such context.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012

63. It is trite law as has been observed in Ibrahim Uddin & Another (supra) that, relief not founded on pleadings cannot be granted. All material facts has to be pleaded and a party cannot be allowed to travel beyond the pleadings. The other authorities cited on the point that, a party must not travel beyond the pleadings and therefore all material facts has to be pleaded are not discussed at length here.
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 1364 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Ritona Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. ... vs Lohia Jute Press And Ors. Etc on 5 February, 2001

13. Relying upon 2012 Volume 8 Supreme Court 148 (Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Another), 2001 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 68 (Ritona Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 10 & Ors. Vs. Lohia Jute Press & Ors.), 1999 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases 377 (Sree Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Vid(s) vs. Phundan Singh & Ors.), 2015 Volume 2 Supreme Court 156 (Meena Chaudhary Vs. Commr. Delhi Police) and 1983 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 625 (Cottan Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. United Industrial Bank Ltd.) learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 7 has contended that no relief should be granted beyond the pleadings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Sree Jain Setambar Terapanthi Vid (S) vs Phundan Singh And Ors on 9 February, 1999

13. Relying upon 2012 Volume 8 Supreme Court 148 (Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Another), 2001 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 68 (Ritona Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 10 & Ors. Vs. Lohia Jute Press & Ors.), 1999 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases 377 (Sree Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Vid(s) vs. Phundan Singh & Ors.), 2015 Volume 2 Supreme Court 156 (Meena Chaudhary Vs. Commr. Delhi Police) and 1983 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 625 (Cottan Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. United Industrial Bank Ltd.) learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 7 has contended that no relief should be granted beyond the pleadings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 52 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next