B.S.CHAUHAN
Sanwarmal Pansari – Appellant
Versus
Churu Wholesale Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Ltd. Churu – Respondent
(2). The respondents have raised a preliminary objection that the society is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.
(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier filed three writ petitions, details of which have been mentioned in earlierpart of the writ petition, as the said writ petitions had been entertained by this Court and respondents never raised any objection, the respondents cannot raise this plea nor the court can find him non-suited only on this ground. It is settled law that estopple does not lie against law. Moreover, even if the respondents have not raised this issue earlier, they are not debarred from raising it this time. In HotelBalaji and Ors. vs.
8. Sri Konaseema Cooperative Central Bank Limited (AIR 1990 AP 171)
18. K. Vasudevan Nayyar vs. Union of India (1991 Suppl. (2) SCC 134)
19. Union of India vs. Secretary
1. Hotel Balaji and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (AIR 1993 SC 1048)
Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1970 SC 245)
6. Sabhajeet Tewari vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1975 SC 1329)
9. Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Munir (AIR 1981 SC 487)
10. Ramanna Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority (AIR 1979 SC 1628)
12. Praga Tools Corporation vs. C.V. Imannual (AIR 1969 SC 1306)
14. Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Shamli vs. Laxmi Narain (AIR 1976 SC 888)
17. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishnakanth (AIR 1995 SC 1715)
13. Chakradhar Patel vs. Samasingha Service Coope. Society Ltd. & Ors. (AIR 1982 Ori. 38)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.