Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (2.37 seconds)Article 243O in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Satya Deo Shakya vs Ajay Kumar Gutpa And 6 Others on 5 October, 2013
17. Learned standing counsel could not point out or show any decision which over rules the aforesaid two Division Bench judgments in the case of Satya Deo Shakya (supra ) and Kismataul Nisha (supra). The provisions of Section 95(1)(g)(iii-a) of the act has already been declared ultra vires. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur is without jurisdiction and can not be sustained.
Article 341 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Moti Lal And Ors. vs The Government Of The State Of Uttar ... on 11 May, 1950
The judgment in Hoti Lal (supra) has, however, not been referred to in the case of Radhey Shyam Sharma (supra). May the judgment of Hoti Lal was not cited before the learned single Judge deciding the case of Radhey Shyam Sharma.
Section 95 in The U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Radhey Shyam Sharma Son Of Sri Nand Ram ... vs State Of U.P. Through It'S Secretary, ... on 13 December, 2006
The judgment in Hoti Lal (supra) has, however, not been referred to in the case of Radhey Shyam Sharma (supra). May the judgment of Hoti Lal was not cited before the learned single Judge deciding the case of Radhey Shyam Sharma.
Smt. Kismatul Nisha Alias Guddi vs State Of U.P. on 22 July, 2010
17. Learned standing counsel could not point out or show any decision which over rules the aforesaid two Division Bench judgments in the case of Satya Deo Shakya (supra ) and Kismataul Nisha (supra). The provisions of Section 95(1)(g)(iii-a) of the act has already been declared ultra vires. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur is without jurisdiction and can not be sustained.
1