Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.21 seconds)
M/S Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 9 December, 2014 cites

Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Another on 10 December, 1982

9. Yet again in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (1983) 1 SCC 147, it was expressed that it is not open to a Court to answer academic or hypothetical questions, particularly so when serious constitutional issues are involved, as Judges are not authorised to make disembodied pronouncements on serious and cloudy issues of constitutional policy without battle lines being properly drawn. It was further held that judicial pronouncements cannot be immaculate legal conceptions and that no important point of law should be decided without a proper lis between parties properly ranged on either side and a crossing of the swords.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 133 - O C Reddy - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 15 January, 2002

11. Similarly, in State of Haryana Vs. State of Punjab (2004) 12 SCC 673, it was held that merely saying that a particular provision is legislatively incompetent will not do; at least prima facie acceptable grounds in support have to be pleaded to sustain the challenge; in the absence of any such pleading, the challenge to the constitutional validity of a statute or statutory provision is liable to be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 139 - R Pal - Full Document

Sheoshankar vs State Govt. Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 18 April, 1951

12. We may sum up using the language of Hidayatullah, J., though in minority in Sheoshankar Vs. State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1951 Nagpur 68, that though it is possible to bring an action for declaration that a particular statute or action under it is ultra vires or unconstitutional, it depends on the fundamental fact that the declaration must not be sought on a hypothetical state of facts and that the cause of action must disclose a real injury already occasioned or about to be occasioned. A declaratory judgment has been held to be neither an advisory opinion nor a decision of a moot question because it must involve a real controversy in which the result would be res judicata between the parties. It is not the exercise of judicial power to write legal essays or to give advisory legal opinions. A Judge never gives a decision until the facts necessary for that decision have arisen because the imagination of Judges, like that of other persons, is limited and W.P.(C) Nos.7745/2014 & 7746/2014 Page 12 of 20 they are not able to put before their minds all the complex circumstances which they ought to have in their minds when giving a decision. The Courts will not in abstract determine the constitutionality of a statute. Mandamus cannot issue unless there is a demand and a refusal or some act or omission is to be ordered. It is not to be expected that the Court will sit and examine the constitutionality of a statute or the rules and notifications with a view to finding out what is constitutional or what is not.
Bombay High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Ghulam Qadir vs Special Tribunal & Ors on 3 October, 2001

13. Of course, the well established rule regarding locus standi, that rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person (except in the case of a writ for habeas corpus or quo warranto) has undergone a sea change in the context of writ petitions filed in public interest as also noticed in Ghulam Qadir Vs. Special Tribunal (2002) 1 SCC 33.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 155 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next