Same matter pending in SC, HC not to exercise jurisdiction

Chhavi Mehrotra v. Director General, Health Services, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 434:

"It is a clear case where the High Court ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 where the matter was clearly seized of by this Court in a petition under Article 32. The petitioner was eo nomine a party to the proceedings before this Court. It is an unhappy situation that the learned Judge of the High Court permitted himself to issue certain directions which, if implemented, would detract from the plenitude of the orders of this Court. The learned Single Judge's perception of justice of the matter might have been different and the abstinence that the observance of judicial propriety, counsels might be unsatisfactory; but judicial discipline would require that in a hierarchical system it is imperative that such conflicting exercise of jurisdiction should strictly be avoided. We restrain ourselves from saying anything more."

When the same dispute is subject matter before the Supreme Court, the High Court cannot entertain writ petition in respect of the same

Union of India v. Jaiswal Coal Co. Ltd., (1999) 5 SCC 733 

Intervention

Ram Nandan Singh v. AG Office Employees Coop. House Construction Society Ltd., (2007) 14 SCC 102 at page 107

12. In Ravi Rao Gaikwad case [(2006) 5 SCC 62] , this Court observed that the purpose of grant of application for intervention is to entitle the interveners to address arguments in support of one or the other side.

 

Solicitor can be restrained from using information gained from one client for being used against him

Rakusen v Ellis, Munday & Clarke,  [1912] 1 Ch. 831 (Court of Appeal)

 

 

Necessity of framing Points of Determination in First Appeal as per Order 41 Rule 31

A.M. Sangappa @ Sangappa v. Sangodeppa, 2013 (14) SCALE 384

See also (2010) 13 SCC 530

Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel

Adjudication to be confined to the objectors alone

(1993) 4 SCC 255

 

Supreme Court held that High Court erred in quashing the whole Section 6 notification rather than confining such quashing to only the objectors who had approached the court. Matter remanded back to the High Court for individualised justice.

Law as on the date of application to be applicable

Rules which are prevalent as on the date when the application is considered are to be applied and not the date when the application is made. Somdev Kapoor v. State of West Bengal & Ors, 2013 (12) SCALE 434