Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.50 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority on 9 September, 1994
12. The issue of filing successive writ petition has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again and held that even if the earlier writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, Public policy which is reflected in the principle enshrined in Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. mandates that successive writ petition cannot be entertained for the same relief. Vide Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal ; Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority ; Khacher Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 1995 All.
Khacher Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 14 February, 1995
12. The issue of filing successive writ petition has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again and held that even if the earlier writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, Public policy which is reflected in the principle enshrined in Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. mandates that successive writ petition cannot be entertained for the same relief. Vide Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal ; Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority ; Khacher Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 1995 All.
Uda Ram vs Central State Farm And Ors. on 11 December, 1997
332; and Uda Ram v. Central State Farm .
Munindra Nath Upadhyaya vs State Of U.P. And Others on 11 November, 1991
For maintaining the writ petition in such a case, there must be liberty given by the Court to file the writ petition if need be arisen for it. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Upadhyaya & Co. v. State of U.P. and Ors. .
D. Cawasji And Co. Mysore vs The State Of Mysore And Anr on 26 September, 1984
In Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. as has been explained, in unambiguous and crystal clear language by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Gudasji & Co. v. State of Mysore ; Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.P. Kumaran ; and Union of India and Ors. v. Punni Lal .
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay vs T.P. Kumaran on 16 August, 1996
In Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. as has been explained, in unambiguous and crystal clear language by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Gudasji & Co. v. State of Mysore ; Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.P. Kumaran ; and Union of India and Ors. v. Punni Lal .