Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
J.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 28 January, 2011 cites

Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 November, 2003

"16.As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations. Though the parameters of pubic interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v.Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273 this Court held that in service matter PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision."
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 902 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. & ... vs C.K. Rajan & Others on 14 August, 2003

5. As against the judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioner preferred a SLP before the Supreme Court with defective SLP. The SLP came to be dismissed on 16.11.2010 by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the Division Bench that the Union has no locus standi to file a writ petition questioning the appointment of private respondent was valid as held by the Supreme Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom, Managing Committee and another v. C.K.Rajan and others ((2003) 7 SCC 546) and State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others ((2010) 3 SCC 402.
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 296 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors on 18 January, 2010

5. As against the judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioner preferred a SLP before the Supreme Court with defective SLP. The SLP came to be dismissed on 16.11.2010 by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the Division Bench that the Union has no locus standi to file a writ petition questioning the appointment of private respondent was valid as held by the Supreme Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom, Managing Committee and another v. C.K.Rajan and others ((2003) 7 SCC 546) and State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others ((2010) 3 SCC 402.
Supreme Court of India Cites 104 - Cited by 721 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1