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

1991 Supreme(Cal) 262

Anandamoy Bhattacharjee, Samir Kumar Mookherjee
Secretary – Appellant
Versus
West Bengal Judicial Service Association – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Pabitra Kumar Basu, Pradipta Roy

Judgment

A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.

1. MY learned brother Mookherjee, J., and 1 have discussed the matter in all its aspects and agreed with each other. Because of the great confidence that 1 have in my learned brother, 1 requested him to prepare the judgment and 1 thought that 1 would be adding a few words of mine on some of the important points involved in this appeal. But after going through the judgment prepared by Mookherjee, J., 1 have felt that in view of the weight of reasons in and all-comprehensiveness of the judgment, any further words from me would be an idle and useless parade. 1, therefore, express my unreserved concurrence in the judgment of my learned brother, appearing hereinafter and do not propose to come out with a separate note as 1 find nothing which 1 can usefully add.

2. S.K. Mookherjee, J.- The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, on 10th of March, 1989. By the said order the learned single Judge allowed the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, preferred on behalf of the respondents nos. 1 to 6 to the present appeal, by directing the State, Government inter alia to confer











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