GHANSHYAM DASS, B.S.CHAUHAN
R. C. CHAUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
VICE-CHANCELLOR, . BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA – Respondent
( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this application are that petitioner had been removed from the post of the Head of the Department by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 1st February, 2003 and this court vide order dated 17-2-2003 stayed the operation thereof. The applicant-respondent no. 3 filed an application on 12th March, 2003 to vacate the said order dated 17-2-2003. Petitioners counsel did not make any attempt to get the matter listed and at this stage we are considering the application dated 12th March, 2003. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in view of the provisions of clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution if an application for vacating the ex parte interim order passed by the Court is not heard within a period of two weeks from the date of its filing, the interim order passed earlier stands vacated aut
REFERRED TO : Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh.
Dinkar Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra.
Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Tinplate Co. of India Ltd.
Krishna Kumar Agarwala v. Reserve Bank of India
Owners and Parties Interested in M.V. "Vali Pero" v. Fernandeo Lopez
Sharif-Ud-din v. Abdul Gani Lone
Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur v. Municipal Board, Rampur
State of U. P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya
K.Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar
Hart Vishnu Kamat v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque
B.S.Khurana v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat
Ram Ashish Ram v. Security Officer
M/s. Rubber House v. M/s. Exellsior Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. B. P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick
Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta
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.