Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. PUNCHHI, CJI., S.C. AGRAWAL AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.
Jagdambika Pal, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4495 of 1998,
D/- 24-2-1998.
ORDER :- We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard learned counsel for the Caveators. On hearing them, the order which commends to us is as follows :
(i) A special Session of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly be summoned/convened for 26th February, 1998, the Session commencing forenoon.
(ii) The only Agenda in the Assembly would be to have a composite floor-test between the contending parties in order to see which out of the two contesting claimants of Chief Ministership has a majority in the House.
(iii) It is pertinently emphasised that the proceedings in the Assembly shall be totally peaceful and disturbance, if any, caused therein would be viewed seriously.
(iv) The result of the composite floor-test would be announced by the Speaker faithfully and truthfully.
2. The result is expected to be laid before us on 27th February, 1998 at 10.30 AM when this Bench assembles again.
3. Ancillary directions are that this order shall be treated to be a notice to all the MLAs, leaving apart the notices the Governor/Secretariat is supposed to issue. In the interregnum, no major decisions would be made by the functioning Government except attending to routine matters, not much of any consequence.
4. To come up on 27th February, 1998 as part-heard.
Order accordingly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
