Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Ulhas T. Naik vs The Hon'Ble President Of India And 6 Ors on 8 February, 2018 cites

Holicow Pictures Pvt.Ltd vs Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors on 6 December, 2007

The instant Petition, presented by an Advocate, practicing in this Court, seeking a writ of quo-warranto, questioning the 2/15 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2018 01:23:34 ::: ssm 3 wp2618.doc appointment of Respondent No.7 as an additional Judge of the Bombay High Court, is an instance of blatant abuse of the process of the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra 1 has observed in paragraph No. 12, which is equally applicable to the instant Petition, we quote-
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 93 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 14 December, 2004

2 In the matter of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra 2 the Hon'ble the Supreme Court cautioned the Courts to look into the Petition carefully and ensure that there is a genuine public interest involved in the case before invoking its jurisdiction. The Court should be careful to ensure that its jurisdiction is not abused by a person or body of persons to further his or their personal causes or to satisfy his or their personal grudge or grudges. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 309 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 January, 2006

In this context, a reference can be made to the Constitution Bench Judgment in the matter of Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. 3. In paragraph No. 166 of the Judgment, it is observed "A plain reading of the aforesaid Article shows that there is a complete bar to the impleading and issue of notice to the President or the Governor inasmuch as they are not answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of their powers and duties. In paragraph 172, the Constitution Bench has observed that "The position in law, therefore, is that the Governor enjoys complete immunity. Governor is not answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties."
Supreme Court of India Cites 138 - Cited by 101 - Full Document
1