MOHAN LAL TRIPATHI v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAI BAREILLY

Geetha Pandit Rao and Anr vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…n lines runs through the provisions of the Constitution of India. 56. In this regard, it is also relevant to consider the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MOHAN LAL TRIPATHI v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAI BAREILLY reported in (1992)4 SCC 80, wherein while upholding the provision of no- confidence motion, has held that the recall of the elected 72 representative, so long it is in accordance with law, cannot be assailed on abstract laws of democracy. 57. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN REPRSENTED BY HIS MOTHER UMA KRISHNAN v. S…

Smt Geetha Pandit Rao vs. The Government of Karnataka

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…n lines runs through the provisions of the Constitution of India. 56. In this regard, it is also relevant to consider the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MOHAN LAL TRIPATHI v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAI BAREILLY reported in (1992)4 SCC 80, wherein while upholding the provision of no- confidence motion, has held that the recall of the elected 72 representative, so long it is in accordance with law, cannot be assailed on abstract laws of democracy. 57. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN REPRSENTED BY HIS MOTHER UMA KRISHNAN v. S…

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

…al issue whether a different view could be taken of confession of accused SK and the alleged recoveries made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, from the view already taken by the Supreme Court in the case of 'XYZ' [Surinder Koli vs. State of U.P. (2011) 4 SCC 80]. As a corollary, the question would be whether the judgment of Supreme Court in 'XYZ'’s case would operate as res-judicata or the findings of the Supreme Court, therein, would be binding upon this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India? 302. Supreme Court in 'XYZ'’s case has upheld the judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Co…