PRADEEP KANT, AJOY NATH RAY, JAGDISH BHALLA
SWAMI PRASAD MAURYA – Appellant
Versus
SPEAKER, LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent
( 2 ) I have also gone through the judgement prepared by Honble Jagdish bhalla, J and I find myself in agreement with the reasoning given by him and the conclusions arrived at and while supporting his view, I pronounce on the issues involved and the controversy raised, as under:
( 3 ) UNFRET and unmoved by the electorates concern and the peoples cry that the member that they elect should adhere to the policies and programmes as propagated through their partys manifesto during elections and that they voted for a party in whose political, economic and social philosophy they have faith, the elected Members change their allegiance and loyalty very often, and they go in the camp of a rival political party completely ignoring the wish of their own constituency members. May be at times there is honest and ideological dissension leading to defection in a large scale and at tim
Brundaban Nayak v. Election Commission of India and others
State Bank of Patiala and others v. S. K. Sharma
A.K.Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others
K.L.Tripathi v. State Bank of India
R.M.D.Chamarbaugwalla and another v. Union of India and another
Ashoka Leyland v. State of Tamil Nadu
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B.Karunakar and others
Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur v. State Bank of India and another
Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan
Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P.
Mayawati v. Markandeya Chand and others
State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Kailash Chandra Mahajan and others
Mahachand Prasad Singh (Dr) v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.