Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)

Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc vs Vikram Cement Etc on 8 July, 2008

"61. From the above case law, it is clear that it is open to the petitioner to withdraw a petition filed by him. Normally, a court of law would not prevent him from withdrawing his petition. But if such withdrawal is without the leave of the court, it would mean that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting or continuing the proceedings and he abandons his claim. In such cases, obviously, public policy requires that he should not start a fresh round of litigation and the court will not allow him to reagitate the claim which he himself had given up earlier."
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 543 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Puran Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 18 January, 1996

"Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly lays down that the procedure provided in the said Code is to be followed in regard to suits and are to be made applicable in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction but by its Explanation while the word "proceedings" includes proceeding under Order IX but does not include one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is thus, evident that the provisions Patna High Court CWJC No.421 of 1988 dt.17-01-2017 10/11 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot per se apply to writ proceedings although certain principles enunciated therein have been applied in writ proceedings from time to time. Thus, there cannot be any automatic application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the matter of writ petitions or writ appeals and for the said reason the period of three years prescribed in the residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act would not also be attracted in proceedings arising out of Article 226 of the Constitution of India including writ appeals. Thus, there cannot be any fixed period so far as substitution of the heirs and legal representatives in a writ petition or writ appeal is concerned. That has also been clearly held by the Supreme Court in Puran Singh's case (supra) holding that there is no question of abatement and it is for the Court to take into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case for the purpose of condoning or not the delay in filing the application for substitution of the legal representatives. That being the legal position, we do not think that it is open to the Courts to prescribe any fixed period for the purpose of filing a substitution petition and for abatement of the writ petition or writ appeal due to non-substitution on that account."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 43 - N P Singh - Full Document

Daryao And Others vs The State Of U. P. And Others(And ... on 27 March, 1961

In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a Constitution Bench judgment reported as Daryao and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, A.I.R. 1961 Supreme Court 1457 and B. Prabhakar Rao and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 210 to contend that the dismissal of the petition without speaking order which will include withdrawal of a writ application will not bar the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Court again in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Patna High Court CWJC No.421 of 1988 dt.17-01-2017 4/11 India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 473 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

B. Prabhakar Rao & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Etc.Etc on 19 August, 1985

In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a Constitution Bench judgment reported as Daryao and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, A.I.R. 1961 Supreme Court 1457 and B. Prabhakar Rao and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 210 to contend that the dismissal of the petition without speaking order which will include withdrawal of a writ application will not bar the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Court again in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Patna High Court CWJC No.421 of 1988 dt.17-01-2017 4/11 India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 157 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next