Maharaj singh vs state of up

The case was in short that after the abolition of zamindari

system the ex-owner of a particular land was still using the
disputed land for cattle shows etc, the goan sabha(local gov
body) filed a case in the trial court where there appeal was
rejected ,the goan body did not apply to the high court but
the gov claiming themselves to be the aggrieved party applied
to the high court, the land having vested in the Gaon
Sabha, the State Government had no locus standi and that it
was not a person aggrieved, for the gov and the plea was
dismissed and the zamindar was given back the land but the
court did say this

” Where a wrong against community interest is done,

'no locus standi' will not always be a plea to non-suit
an
interested public body(ngo is a private body) chasing
the wrongdoer in court.In the instant case the Government is
the 'aggrieved person'.

Baskaran case is abt impleadment and not intervention

The third respondent joined the second respondent college in the year 1971 as Assistant
Professor, Physical Education. He applied for leave on loss of pay for two years from 6-3-
1981 to 5-3-1983 which was sanctioned by the then Secretary to the College. The
Director of Collegiate Education came to know that the third respondent was working
abroad without getting prior permission. Hence, he instructed the Management to take
action against the third respondent for going abroad without getting prior permission from
the Director- vide his letter dated 6-8- 1982 - and also instructed the Management not to
permit the third respondent to rejoin duty without getting prior permission from the
Director. An explanation was called for from the third respondent by the Secretary to the
College by his letter dated 4- 9-1982. The third respondent sent a reply on 19-10-1982
which was forwarded to the Director of Collegiate Education. He referred to his
registration with the Foreign Assignment Section of Government of India through the
College in 1977 and obtaining NOC from the College for his passport. There was,
however, no explanation for working in a foreign country without getting the prior
permission of the Director of Collegiate Education,the high court agve the 3 rd respondant
his job back but Now the substitute teacher in the case “the applicant” filed another writ
as his job was in danger. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Ganpat Roy v. Additional District Magistrate , wherein it was held that a party who has
no right to appear at the original hearing of an application, cannot have a right of review
on an appeal against an order passed on that application. The ruling has no relevance in
this case as, in our opinion, the applicant herein was a necessary party in the writ petition
as well as the writ appeal in these proceedings and he ought to have been impleaded as a
party and given an opportunity to contest the same. The applicant was impleaded as a
necessary party.

Naresh kumar badrikumar

The UOI was the intervening party, under 47cpc , review petition

Refer photo sent

Hiteshkumar Natwarlal

original petitioner has filed Special Civil Application

the vacation was done because there was no intimation from the other party

harish Chandra singh rawat vs uoi

ex-cm of uttrakhand lost 8 party members support and lost the floor test

intervenors who were disqualified from voting were allowed to speak in the name of
justice (the 8 mlas)

intervenors were imp to the case

athar Hussain

civil appeal

custody of 2 children born out of wedlock after mothers death

mothers family claimed guardianship and the mothers property with it

fathe being natural guardian was denied that right so he appealed to the supreme court

Irreparable injury will be caused to the father if he is denied interim custody as he is the
natural guardian of the children, the care and concern for whom he had established in
various ways. Keeping in view the fact that welfare of the children is the paramount
consideration, it was noted that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would get married and start
living separately while respondent no.1 is an aged person. Therefore, the appellant was
more competent and fit than all to take care of the children