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

2014 Supreme(SC) 1196

H.L.DATTU, S.A.BOBDE
Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Manohar Lal Sharma, In Person Kaushal Yadav, E.V. Venugopal, Ram Kishore Singh Yadav, Mamta Rani, Praveen K. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mohan Parasaran, S.G., D.L. Chidanand, B.K. Prasad, Advocates.

ORDER :

On an earlier occasion, i.e., on 18.11.2013, we had declined to entertain a batch of writ petitions on the ground that they were pre-mature.

2. The instant writ petition is filed inter alia containing more or less the same prayer. We do not see any change in the prayer made in this writ petition and the writ petition(s) heard and decided on 18.11.2013. Therefore, we decline to entertain this writ petition at this stage and the same is disposed of accordingly.

3. However, all the issues raised in the writ petition are kept open to be agitated in an appropriate petition at an appropriate stage.

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