Back
PRASHANT KUMAR, MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Amar Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.
Heard Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellants and Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-petitioner.
2. The instant intra-Court Special Appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred as the 'Rules, 1952') has been preferred against judgment and order dated 21.8.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 11040 of 2020 (Amar Singh v. State of U.P. and others). For ready reference, the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 21.8.2023 is reproduced as under :
66. The principle of law is well-settled that interference by the High Court or Tribunal in the judicial exercise of power would not extend to appreciating the evidence and coming to a different conclusion than what Domestic Tribunal has already arrived at but the question is as to whether this decisio
The court emphasized that a dismissal must be proportionate to the misconduct and that procedural violations in disciplinary inquiries can invalidate the outcome.
High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 is contingent upon the presence of a cause of action within its territorial limits, as clarified by recent rulings.
A High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226(2) requires that part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.
Territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution is determined by whether the cause of action, either in whole or in part, has arisen within its territorial limits.
The judgment emphasized the need for clarifying the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) in relation to challenges against orders passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench,....
Point of Law : Territorial jurisdiction - Prior to Constitutional (Fifteenth Amendment Act, 1963, concept of cause of action was alien for adjudication of disputes by High Court under Article 226 of ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Consti....
The court highlighted that mere receipt of a rejection letter does not establish territorial jurisdiction if the cancellation decision originates from another jurisdiction.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
