Skip to content


R.D. Gupta Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 57 of 1968
Judge
Reported in(1971)3SCC817
ActsU.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 5(2)(a), 4; Constitution of Inida - Article 226
AppellantR.D. Gupta
RespondentThe Union of India (Uoi)
Excerpt:
- [ j.c. shah and; k.s. hegde, jj.] - abatement and revival — abatement at appellate stage — statutory abatement — sections 5(2)(a) and 4 of the u.p. consolidation of holdings act, 1953 (as amended by u.p. act 21 of 1966) — during the pendency of the appeal in this court, a notification has been issued under section 4 of the act. this court has in ram adhar singh v. ramroop singh1 held that even appeals pending before this court will abate consequent on the above statutory provision. parties will bear their costs throughout......— article 226 — interim order — high court by its order awaiting disposal of appeal pending before director of education against dismissal of teachers — appellants before supreme court submitting that they intended to question before the high court jurisdiction of the director to entertain such appeal — order of the high court having been passed in open court before counsel of both the parties, it is not open to challenge before supreme court on the ground that it was passed under any misapprehension -- mr nariman says that the question of jurisdiction of the director to entertain the appeal can be disposed of by the high court in the writ petition pending before it and that the appellants do not want to argue the appeal before the director at all. we,.....
Judgment:

[ Amarendra Nath Sen,; D.A. Desai and;Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.] - Constitution of India — Article 226 — Interim order — High Court by its order awaiting disposal of appeal pending before Director of Education against dismissal of teachers — Appellants before Supreme Court submitting that they intended to question before the High Court jurisdiction of the Director to entertain such appeal — Order of the High Court having been passed in open court before counsel of both the parties, it is not open to challenge before Supreme Court on the ground that it was passed under any misapprehension -- Mr Nariman says that the question of jurisdiction of the Director to entertain the appeal can be disposed of by the High Court in the writ petition pending before it and that the appellants do not want to argue the appeal before the Director at all. We, therefore, direct that the High Court may dispose of the petition without awaiting the result of the appeal which is pending before the Director. The High Court seems to have fixed January 20, 1982, as the date for hearing the appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //