Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (1.11 seconds)Sri Ram Laxmi Narain Marvari Hindu ... vs Assistant Registrar, Firm'S, ... on 19 May, 2000
In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the decisions relied upon by Sri N. K. Seth referred to above, in fact relate to different authorities such as prescribed authority under the Panchayat Raj Act, Additional/Deputy Labour Commissioner under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and the District Inspector of Schools under the Intermediate Education Act, function as a Tribunal or quasi-judicial authority. If a person being aggrieved by the order passed by the above authorities prefers a writ petition, then that writ petition is cognizable by learned single Judge and the pronouncement made therein is not amenable to special appeal. We further find that the order under challenge is an administrative order passed by the Registrar and thereafter the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition has the trappings of the final order.
Muslim Welfare Society, Machhlishahr ... vs Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies ... on 16 April, 1991
6. Sri Anupam Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order passed by the Registrar is purely an administrative order and this order cannot be termed to be an order of a body or authority having the status of a Tribunal. Relying upon the decisions in Committee of Management v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, 1987 UPLBEC 989, Abhay GGJS Kusmikhalan v. Assistant Registrar, 1990 UPLBEC 480, Urwa Bazar Educational Society v. Assistant Registrar, 1988 (2) AWC 1148 : 1988 UPLBEC 515, Khapraha Educational Society v. Assistant Registrar, 1993 (1) AWC 332 : 1993 UPLBEC 89O, Committee of Management v. Assistant Registrar, 1993 (1) UPLBEC 690 and Muslim Welfare Society v. Assistant Registrar, 1991 (2) AWC 1311 : 1991 UPLBEC 1046 learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order dated 5.7.2002, passed by the Registrar is purely an administrative order by which it has been directed that election will be held by the Registrar. Further, by this order, the Registrar has nullified elections that have 'already held on 1.7.2002 in pursuance of notification dated 20.6.2002 and giving complete go-bye to Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, has passed the impugned order allegedly under Section 25 (2) of the Act on the representation of the Respondent No. 3.
Shah Babulal Khimji vs Jayaben D. Kania And Anr on 10 August, 1981
In Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, AIR 1981 SC 1786, the Supreme Court observed that every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned.
Sandeep Agarwal And Ors. vs Adarsh Chadha And Ors. on 24 May, 2002
In Sandeep Agarawal and Anr. v. Adarsh Chaddha and Ors. Special Appeal No. 122 (M/S) of 2002, this Court after considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court and this Court held that if the interlocutory order amounts to disposal of a vital issue and in fact is affecting vital and valuable rights having trappings of the final orders, in that case, the special appeal is maintainable.