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

2004 Supreme(Guj) 793

BHAWANI SINGH, H.K.RATHOD
LEGAL HEIRS and REPRESENTATIVE OF DECD. – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: PRANAV G.DESAI, SUNIL K.SHAH

H. K. RATHOD, J.

( 1 ) BEFORE adverting to the facts of the matters at hand, it would be proper to refer to few observations made by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works and others and Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Workers and Allied Beedi Factories Workers Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? YES Association, Akbar Road Mandi Mohalla, Mysore [2004 (103) FLR 387] since the same are material in view of the facts of the present case. "the judicial review power vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised in such a way as to advance the objectives of law and not to thwart those objective. Technicalities cannot be permitted to hijack the divine rhythm of justice. The parties should win or lose on substantive grounds and not on technical tortures. The relief to be granted by the High Court must be such as could be considered permissible in law and worked out by application of legally recognized principles. The decision must have legitimacy of legal reasoning and should not incur the criticism of lacking the objectivity of purpose and rational and legal justi































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