Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.57 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Khetrabasi Biswal vs Ajaya Kumar Baral And Ors on 20 November, 2003
19. As we evince from the sequence of events, the High Court in the
earlier judgment had issued the direction relating to carrying of
census in a particular manner by adding certain facets though the lis
was absolutely different. The appellant, the real aggrieved party,
was not arrayed as a party-respondent. The issue was squarely raised
in the subsequent writ petition where the Census Commissioner was a
party and the earlier order was repeated. There can be no shadow of
doubt that earlier order is not binding on the appellant as he was not
a party to the said lis. This view of ours gets fructified by the
decision in H.C. Kulwant Singh and others V. H.C. Daya Ram and
others[4] wherein this Court, after referring to the judgments in
Khetrabasi Biswal V. Ajaya Kumar Baral & Ors.[5], Udit Narain Singh
Malpaharia V. Board of Revenue[6], Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors.[7] and Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. V. State of W.B. &
Ors.[8] has ruled thus:
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs Additional Member, Board Of Revenue, ... on 19 October, 1962
19. As we evince from the sequence of events, the High Court in the
earlier judgment had issued the direction relating to carrying of
census in a particular manner by adding certain facets though the lis
was absolutely different. The appellant, the real aggrieved party,
was not arrayed as a party-respondent. The issue was squarely raised
in the subsequent writ petition where the Census Commissioner was a
party and the earlier order was repeated. There can be no shadow of
doubt that earlier order is not binding on the appellant as he was not
a party to the said lis. This view of ours gets fructified by the
decision in H.C. Kulwant Singh and others V. H.C. Daya Ram and
others[4] wherein this Court, after referring to the judgments in
Khetrabasi Biswal V. Ajaya Kumar Baral & Ors.[5], Udit Narain Singh
Malpaharia V. Board of Revenue[6], Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors.[7] and Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. V. State of W.B. &
Ors.[8] has ruled thus:
Prabodh Verma And Others, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others. Etc on 27 July, 1984
19. As we evince from the sequence of events, the High Court in the
earlier judgment had issued the direction relating to carrying of
census in a particular manner by adding certain facets though the lis
was absolutely different. The appellant, the real aggrieved party,
was not arrayed as a party-respondent. The issue was squarely raised
in the subsequent writ petition where the Census Commissioner was a
party and the earlier order was repeated. There can be no shadow of
doubt that earlier order is not binding on the appellant as he was not
a party to the said lis. This view of ours gets fructified by the
decision in H.C. Kulwant Singh and others V. H.C. Daya Ram and
others[4] wherein this Court, after referring to the judgments in
Khetrabasi Biswal V. Ajaya Kumar Baral & Ors.[5], Udit Narain Singh
Malpaharia V. Board of Revenue[6], Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors.[7] and Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. V. State of W.B. &
Ors.[8] has ruled thus:
Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008
19. As we evince from the sequence of events, the High Court in the
earlier judgment had issued the direction relating to carrying of
census in a particular manner by adding certain facets though the lis
was absolutely different. The appellant, the real aggrieved party,
was not arrayed as a party-respondent. The issue was squarely raised
in the subsequent writ petition where the Census Commissioner was a
party and the earlier order was repeated. There can be no shadow of
doubt that earlier order is not binding on the appellant as he was not
a party to the said lis. This view of ours gets fructified by the
decision in H.C. Kulwant Singh and others V. H.C. Daya Ram and
others[4] wherein this Court, after referring to the judgments in
Khetrabasi Biswal V. Ajaya Kumar Baral & Ors.[5], Udit Narain Singh
Malpaharia V. Board of Revenue[6], Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors.[7] and Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. V. State of W.B. &
Ors.[8] has ruled thus:
Suresh Seth vs Commissioner, Indore Municipal ... on 6 October, 2005
In this context, we may refer to a three-Judge Bench decision
in Suresh Seth V. Commr., Indore Municipal Corporation[9] wherein a
prayer was made before this Court to issue directions for appropriate
amendment in the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 so that a person
may be debarred from simultaneously holding two elected offices,
namely, that of a Member of the Legislative Assembly and also of a
Mayor of a Municipal Corporation. Repelling the said submission, the
Court held:
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 July, 1989
In Supreme Court Employees’
Welfare Assn. v. Union of India[10] (SCC para 51) it has been
held that no court can direct a legislature to enact a particular
law. Similarly, when an executive authority exercises a
legislative power by way of a subordinate legislation pursuant to
the delegated authority of a legislature, such executive
authority cannot be asked to enact a law which it has been
empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority.
A. K. Roy, Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 December, 1981
In
A.K. Roy v. Union of India[12] it was held that no mandamus can
be issued to enforce an Act which has been passed by the
legislature.”
N.D. Jayal And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 2003
In N.D. Jayal and Anr. V.
Union of India & Ors.[13], the Court has observed that in the matters
of policy, when the Government takes a decision bearing in mind
several aspects, the Court should not interfere with the same.