Court : Karnataka
..... light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the process of consultation was incomplete and was not concluded as per the requirements of the 1986 act.223. the hon ble supreme court in the case of ashwini kumar upadhyay vs- union of india46, in respect of state of tamil nadu, has observed as under: ..... but an artificial one and offends article 14.220. the hon ble supreme court while considering the provisions of section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the kl act in the case of justice chandrashekaraiah .vs. janekere c. krishna and others43, at paragraphs 36, 37, 106, 107 and 112 has held as under: 36. the lokayukta or upa-lokayukta under ..... removal of the judges of the high court.87. as the chief justice has primacy of opinion in the said matter, the non-acceptance of such recommendations by the chief minister remains insignificant. thus, it clearly emerges that the governor, under section 3 of the 1986 act has acted 248 upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers. such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the process of consultation was incomplete and was not concluded as per the requirements of the 1986 act.223. the hon ble supreme court in the case of ashwini kumar upadhyay vs- union of india46, in respect of state of tamil nadu, has observed as under: ..... but an artificial one and offends article 14.220. the hon ble supreme court while considering the provisions of section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the kl act in the case of justice chandrashekaraiah .vs. janekere c. krishna and others43, at paragraphs 36, 37, 106, 107 and 112 has held as under: 36. the lokayukta or upa-lokayukta under ..... removal of the judges of the high court.87. as the chief justice has primacy of opinion in the said matter, the non-acceptance of such recommendations by the chief minister remains insignificant. thus, it clearly emerges that the governor, under section 3 of the 1986 act has acted 248 upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers. such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the process of consultation was incomplete and was not concluded as per the requirements of the 1986 act.223. the hon ble supreme court in the case of ashwini kumar upadhyay vs- union of india46, in respect of state of tamil nadu, has observed as under: ..... but an artificial one and offends article 14.220. the hon ble supreme court while considering the provisions of section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the kl act in the case of justice chandrashekaraiah .vs. janekere c. krishna and others43, at paragraphs 36, 37, 106, 107 and 112 has held as under: 36. the lokayukta or upa-lokayukta under ..... removal of the judges of the high court.87. as the chief justice has primacy of opinion in the said matter, the non-acceptance of such recommendations by the chief minister remains insignificant. thus, it clearly emerges that the governor, under section 3 of the 1986 act has acted 248 upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers. such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the process of consultation was incomplete and was not concluded as per the requirements of the 1986 act.223. the hon ble supreme court in the case of ashwini kumar upadhyay vs- union of india46, in respect of state of tamil nadu, has observed as under: ..... but an artificial one and offends article 14.220. the hon ble supreme court while considering the provisions of section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the kl act in the case of justice chandrashekaraiah .vs. janekere c. krishna and others43, at paragraphs 36, 37, 106, 107 and 112 has held as under: 36. the lokayukta or upa-lokayukta under ..... removal of the judges of the high court.87. as the chief justice has primacy of opinion in the said matter, the non-acceptance of such recommendations by the chief minister remains insignificant. thus, it clearly emerges that the governor, under section 3 of the 1986 act has acted 248 upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers. such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the process of consultation was incomplete and was not concluded as per the requirements of the 1986 act.223. the hon ble supreme court in the case of ashwini kumar upadhyay vs- union of india46, in respect of state of tamil nadu, has observed as under: ..... but an artificial one and offends article 14.220. the hon ble supreme court while considering the provisions of section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the kl act in the case of justice chandrashekaraiah .vs. janekere c. krishna and others43, at paragraphs 36, 37, 106, 107 and 112 has held as under: 36. the lokayukta or upa-lokayukta under ..... removal of the judges of the high court.87. as the chief justice has primacy of opinion in the said matter, the non-acceptance of such recommendations by the chief minister remains insignificant. thus, it clearly emerges that the governor, under section 3 of the 1986 act has acted 248 upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers. such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the process of consultation was incomplete and was not concluded as per the requirements of the 1986 act.223. the hon ble supreme court in the case of ashwini kumar upadhyay vs- union of india46, in respect of state of tamil nadu, has observed as under: ..... but an artificial one and offends article 14.220. the hon ble supreme court while considering the provisions of section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the kl act in the case of justice chandrashekaraiah .vs. janekere c. krishna and others43, at paragraphs 36, 37, 106, 107 and 112 has held as under: 36. the lokayukta or upa-lokayukta under ..... removal of the judges of the high court.87. as the chief justice has primacy of opinion in the said matter, the non-acceptance of such recommendations by the chief minister remains insignificant. thus, it clearly emerges that the governor, under section 3 of the 1986 act has acted 248 upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers. such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the process of consultation was incomplete and was not concluded as per the requirements of the 1986 act.223. the hon ble supreme court in the case of ashwini kumar upadhyay vs- union of india46, in respect of state of tamil nadu, has observed as under: ..... but an artificial one and offends article 14.220. the hon ble supreme court while considering the provisions of section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the kl act in the case of justice chandrashekaraiah .vs. janekere c. krishna and others43, at paragraphs 36, 37, 106, 107 and 112 has held as under: 36. the lokayukta or upa-lokayukta under ..... removal of the judges of the high court.87. as the chief justice has primacy of opinion in the said matter, the non-acceptance of such recommendations by the chief minister remains insignificant. thus, it clearly emerges that the governor, under section 3 of the 1986 act has acted 248 upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers. such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the process of consultation was incomplete and was not concluded as per the requirements of the 1986 act.223. the hon ble supreme court in the case of ashwini kumar upadhyay vs- union of india46, in respect of state of tamil nadu, has observed as under: ..... but an artificial one and offends article 14.220. the hon ble supreme court while considering the provisions of section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the kl act in the case of justice chandrashekaraiah .vs. janekere c. krishna and others43, at paragraphs 36, 37, 106, 107 and 112 has held as under: 36. the lokayukta or upa-lokayukta under ..... removal of the judges of the high court.87. as the chief justice has primacy of opinion in the said matter, the non-acceptance of such recommendations by the chief minister remains insignificant. thus, it clearly emerges that the governor, under section 3 of the 1986 act has acted 248 upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers. such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the process of consultation was incomplete and was not concluded as per the requirements of the 1986 act.223. the hon ble supreme court in the case of ashwini kumar upadhyay vs- union of india46, in respect of state of tamil nadu, has observed as under: ..... but an artificial one and offends article 14.220. the hon ble supreme court while considering the provisions of section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the kl act in the case of justice chandrashekaraiah .vs. janekere c. krishna and others43, at paragraphs 36, 37, 106, 107 and 112 has held as under: 36. the lokayukta or upa-lokayukta under ..... removal of the judges of the high court.87. as the chief justice has primacy of opinion in the said matter, the non-acceptance of such recommendations by the chief minister remains insignificant. thus, it clearly emerges that the governor, under section 3 of the 1986 act has acted 248 upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers. such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary. 12 (6) where any order stopping further investigation into an offence has been made ..... to abide any of the conditions of the court on grant of bail. in support of arguments relied on chaganti satyanarayana and others v. state of andhra pradesh, (1986) 3 scc141and central bureau of investigation, new delhi v. anupama j.kulkarni, (1992) 3 scc141and sought to release them on bail.6. sr.app filed objections ..... thakur v. state of maharashtra, (1994) 4 scc602:1994. scc (cri) 1087]. , which spoke of default bail under the provisions of the terrorist and disruptive activities (prevention) act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as tada ) read with section 167 of the code as follows: (scc pp. 625-28, paras 19-21) 19. section 20(4) of .....
Tag this Judgment!