REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KRIPA RAM GUPTA Appellant

V/S

R.K.TALWAR Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAM AUTAR PANDEY V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
FRA-SAD NIGAM V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MAHANT MOTI DAS MAHANT SHIA RAM DAS MAHANT NARAIN DAS MAHANT MAHABIR DAS MAHANT RAM KRISHNA DAS VS. S P SAHI THE STATE OF BIHAR THE PRESIDENT BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUSTS [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI PERSHAD MAHTAB SINGH SURENDAR DEV GAUR VS. ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
DALIP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
GAZULA DASARATHA RAMA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL NARAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
T G SHIVACHARANA SINGH C I RAJOO NAIDU V SANJEEVAIAH G SRINIVASA RAO MOHAMED HAFEEZ KHAN H GOPINATH RAO E H MANOHAR SINGH M U LAXMAN B MOHAMMAD ASADULLAH K R SESHADRI IYENGAR K M A BAVOOF KHAN KUMMAJI RAO VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
GURDEV SINGH SIDHU VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
BISHUN NARARIN MISRA VS. STATE OT UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
S C JAISINGHANI C K TIKKU MOHAN CHANDRA JOSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this bunch of cases comprising five writ petitions and two Special Appeals, the following two ques tions concerning the interpretation of Rule 56 (a) of the Fundamental Rules have been referred for the opinion of this Full Bench:

(2.) THE answer to question No. 1, in my opinion, is plain from the language of the rule itself and does not need any ela borate discussion. The material part of Rule 56 (a) reads:-

(3.) AS regards question No. 2, I am in respectful agreement with the answer proposed by my brother Pathak and hold that the proviso (i) to clause (a) of Fundamental Rule 56 violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Click here to view full judgment.

KRIPA RAM GUPTA Vs. R K TALWAR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address