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

1977 Supreme(All) 21

R.B.MISRA, T.S.MISRA, H.N.SETH, YASHODANANDAN, S.MALIK
Bhuwal – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh – Respondent


Advocates:
Brij Bhushan Paul, for Petitioner; S.C. for Respondents.

Judgement

YASHODA NANDAN, J. :- The following two questions have been referred to this Bench for its opinion:

1. Whether the first proviso to Cl. 14 of the U. P. High courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, is in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution relating to the constitution and organization of the High Courts (namely, Arts. 214, 230, 231) and the Scheme contemplated therein, and is saved by Art. 226 or Art. 372 or any other Article of the constitution after its enforcement on 26-1-1950?

2. Whether the jurisdiction and power of the Allahabad High Court, conferred on the Judges sitting at Lucknow under Clause 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, include the jurisdiction and power under Art. 226 of the Constitution ?

Since the constitutionality of an Order issued by the Governor General was in question, notice was issued to the learned Attorney General of India. Notices were also issued to the Allahabad High court Bar Association and to the Oudh Bar Association which are vitally interested in the questions referred to this Bench.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the counsel who represented the two Bar Associations. Before proceeding





















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