Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)State Of Maharashtra vs Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan on 20 July, 1981
About
two decades back in State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao
Pritirao Chawan (AIR 1982 SC 1215) the desirability of a
speaking order while dealing with an application for grant
of leave was highlighted. The requirement of indicating
reasons in such cases has been judicially recognized as
imperative.
Jawahar Lal Singh vs Naresh Singh & Ors on 10 February, 1987
The view was re-iterated in Jawahar Lal Singh v.
Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987 (2) SCC 222). Judicial
discipline to abide by declaration of law by this Court,
cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority or
Court, be it even the highest Court in a State, oblivious to
Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the
'Constitution').
State Of U.P. vs Battan And Ors. on 4 May, 2000
Reasons introduce clarity
in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High
Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief
in its order, indicative of an application of its mind; all
the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of
challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High
Court order not sustainable. Similar view was expressed in
State of U.P. v. Battan and Ors (2001 (10) SCC 607).
State Of Punjab vs Bhag Singh on 16 December, 2003
The above position was highlighted by us in State of
Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004 (1) SCC 547).
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Raj Kishore Jha vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 7 October, 2003
Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and
without the same it becomes lifeless. (See Raj Kishore Jha
v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Supreme 152).
Section 22 in The Orissa Forest Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
1