Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.55 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 24 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P. And Anr vs Johri Mal on 21 April, 2004
In my considered opinion, therefore, the fresh appointments to be now
made keeping in view the apt observations made especially in the case of
Johri Mal (supra) (paras 40 to 44) and what is held hereinabove in main
judgment.
State Of U.P & Ors vs Rakesh Kumar Keshari & Anr on 4 May, 2011
714. This decision was followed consistently by this Court as and when
these issues arose for consideration (see State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Rakesh
Kumar Keshari & Anr. (2011) 5 SCC 341, Centre for Public Interest
Litigation & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 117, Deepak
Aggarwal vs. Keshav Kaushik & Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 277 and State of U.P. &
Ors. vs. Satyavrat Singh (2014) 14 SCC 548).
Ram Charan Singh Prajapati vs State Of U.P. Ors. on 25 February, 2015
On
the issue that the impugned Judgment of the Lucknow Bench is per incuriam,
Mr Lekhi has submitted that the impugned Order has rightly ignored the
decisions of the co-ordinate Bench at Allahabad in Ram Charan Singh
Prajapati v. State of UP and Guru Prasad v. State of UP because the
Allahabad Bench itself passed orders which are per incuriam.
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta ... vs V.R. Rudani & Ors on 21 April, 1989
Mr. Manoj
Goel learned Counsel for some of the other Respondents further submits
that on a proper perusal of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami
Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V. R. Rudani (1989) 2 SCC 691 and
the Constitutional Bench in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4
SCC 649, it is manifest that a mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that
the duty to be enforced is not imposed by a statute and, in fact, may even
be passed in order to enforce a contract. He has emphasised that a Mandamus
is the appropriate remedy in light of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi because a
public element is involved in the appointment of DGCs and ADGCs which
itself is ample reason to attract Article 14 and judicial review under the
Constitution of India.
Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2005
Mr. Manoj
Goel learned Counsel for some of the other Respondents further submits
that on a proper perusal of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami
Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V. R. Rudani (1989) 2 SCC 691 and
the Constitutional Bench in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4
SCC 649, it is manifest that a mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that
the duty to be enforced is not imposed by a statute and, in fact, may even
be passed in order to enforce a contract. He has emphasised that a Mandamus
is the appropriate remedy in light of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi because a
public element is involved in the appointment of DGCs and ADGCs which
itself is ample reason to attract Article 14 and judicial review under the
Constitution of India.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Ashok Kumar Nigam on 13 December, 2012
Our attention has also been drawn to State of UP v.
Ashok Kumar Nigam (2013) 3 SCC 372 where this Court has reiterated that
reasoning is the sine qua non for refusal under the concerned provisions of
LR Manual which they claim is not a valid basis for en masse rejection.
Union Of India & Anr vs Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc on 16 May, 1989
26. There was some debate on the question whether a Division Bench of
Judges is obliged to follow the law laid down by a Division Bench of a
larger number of Judges.