SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 14

V.N.KHARE, S.P.BHARUCHA
RAMCHANDER SUNDA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition of 1988. In para 1 thereof, it is averred that it is filed by the individual petitioner in a representative capacity. It is not disputed that no application for leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil procedure Code was made, no leave was obtained and no publication in this behalf was effected. Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that the petition in a representative capacity is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original petitioner has been substituted by another petitioner pursuant to an order of this Court, that the petition has been admitted and that, therefore, it must be proceeded with as being a petition in a representative capacity.

( 2 ) IT is for the petitioner to make an application under Order 1 Rule 8. It is not for the court to see at the time of admitting the petition whether it is in a representative capacity or otherwise. Therefore, this writ petition in a representative capacity is not maintainable. It can be proceeded with insofar as the individual substituted petitioner is concerned.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that it cannot be proceeded with in an individu


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top