A writ petition was filed before Bombay High Court by Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan – the first respondent in this appeal. He described himself as an agriculturist by profession. The allegation in the writ petition is of illegal money lending a..
This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 1004 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 19.09.2003 pas..
The Allahabad High Court has had a glorious history having produced great lawyers who were leaders in the Independence struggle. It is the largest High Court in India, and often gives leadership to all the High Courts in the country. There have been ..
The question raised in this appeal, by special leave, is as regards the extent of power vested in the Government in reviewing its order granting or refusing sanction to prosecute the public servant in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corrupti..
This appeal by special appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 25th February, 2003, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Gwalior Bench, whereby Second Appeal No.230 of 1995 filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was allowed but..
According to the plaintiffs their predecessor-in-interest viz., one Venkata Ramana Rao, who happened to be the father of plaintiff No. 1 and husband of plaintiff No. 2, was the owner of land in dispute. Venkata Ramana Rao was a Government employee an..
The Writ Petition in the High Court was filed for quashing the order dated 23.03.2001 of the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade. By the aforesaid order dated 23.03.2001 the Deputy Director General wrote to the Writ Petitioner (the respondent he..
These appeals have been filed against the interim orders passed by the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dated 4.9.2008 in Writ Petition No. 7851(M/B) of 2008 and dated 30.11.2009 in Writ Petition No.11170 (MB) of 2009, by which the High Court ..
Accordingly, while issuing notice, we had confined the same only to the question relating to the interpretation of Section 151-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, with regard to the holding of elections in a vacancy within six months fro..
The facts giving rise to the revision petitions filed before the High Court have been set out in the order passed by the High Court and those passed by the RDO and the Joint Collector, District, Ranga Reddy. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to re..
All the writ petitioners, as also the Petitioners in SLP(C)No.6385/2010, are members of the Rajasthan Administrative Service and are governed by the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954. The writ petitioners in their respective writ petitions..
This judgment will dispose of three sets of Criminal Appeal Nos. 207-209/2005, 763-765/2005, and 766- 769/2005 as they arise out of the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 18th September 2003. In the light of the fact that we intend to re..
The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the provisions contained in Sections 24, 24A and 26 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (for short, `the Act’) operate as a bar against the prosecution of a person who is char..
This appeal, filed under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (‘the Act’ for short), is directed against judgment dated August 8, 2005, rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Election Petiti..
These appeals relate to the claim of the Lower Division Clerks/Upper Division Clerks, who were appointed as regular Stenographers (referred to as “special promotees”) on 25.4.1992, under proviso (5A) to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial..
Mr. Andhyarujina submitted that in relation to an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, on an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter r..
The grant holder Naval Kishore and others filed a second suit bearing suit No.6 of 1963 for recovery of rent and damages for use and occupation of the bungalow apparently for the period subsequent to the earlier suit. This suit was also decreed by th..
The plaintiff-appellant herein filed a suit for eviction and recovery of possession and mesne profits against the respondent. The plaintiff alleged that the suit property comprising two rooms with an attached verandah consisting of kitchen space situ..
This petition has been filed against the impugned judgment passed by a division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dated 5.8.2010 in Special Appeal No. 973 of 2010. By that judgment the ex-parte interim orders of the Single Judge of the High Court ..
Whether Chief Executive Officer of the Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as `the Chief Executive Officer’) could reject the highest bid given by respondent No.1 in respect of commercial site measuring 9..
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
