Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc

relied upon. In other words, it is subject to "collateral attack" : vide Benjafiled and Whit more on Principles of Australian Administrative Law. With

main on which the order of the General Manager was attacked as null and void. The first ground was that it was a condition precedent ... question whether the petitioners were honourably acquitted or not was a collateral question on the decision of which depended the jurisdiction of the General Manager

Both the grounds on which the order of the General Manager was attacked as null and void were disputed on behalf of the respondents ... question whether the petitioners were honourably acquitted or not was not a collateral question but was a question which was entrusted by Rule

paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 at page 519 of the Report. The attack against the validity of Section 96 Sub-section (4) on the ground ... Ground (B): That takes us to the next ground of attack, namely, that the impugned orders of resumption were made by the Government mala fide

S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 December, 1981 Bench: P

Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1982 Equivalent

A. K. Roy, Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 December, 1981 Equivalent

S.P. Gupta vs President Of India And Ors. on 30 December, 1981 Equivalent citations

Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 1980