WebSummary of the facts [1] Harish Uppal, the petitioner, was a former army officer. During the 1971 Liberation War, he was stationed in Bangladesh. Due to suspicions of … WebJul 20, 2024 · Harish Uppal vs Union of India on 17 December, 2002 The petitioner, in this case, was an ex-army officer. In 1972 petitioner was …
Bargaining or to strike either as part of collective - Course Hero
The Constitution of India: 1. Article 226: Powers given to the court to issue writs. 2. Article 145: defines the rules of court. The Advocates Act: 1. Section 7: Functions of the Bar Council of India. 2. Section 30: defines the right of … See more The Supreme Court of India concluded that the strike by an advocate is considered unlawful and illicit. A strike might be allowed in the most extraordinary of the uncommon situations where respectability, … See more WebAccess full book title The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, as Modified Up to the 1st July, 1960 by India. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format. By : India; 1960; The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, as Modified Up to the 1st July, 1960. Author: India Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en mattresses at bed bath \u0026 beyond
Right of Lawyers to Strike in India: Ex Captain Harish Uppal V.
WebEx. Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another, AIR 2003 SC 739 and also the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Yatin Narendra Oza vs. High Court of Gujarat, AIR 2024 SC 5578, learned Advocate General submits that strike is not permissible in any manner and he is deadly against the said strike. WebAug 18, 2014 · 5) Ex-Capt, Harish Uppal v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 739 Thanks & Regards Shiva Reply Follow 10 Replies Adv Archana Deshmukh (Practicing Advocate) 22 September 2010 I am attaching the first judgement here, Chandra Shekhar Soni v. Bar Council of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1983 SC 1012 Web5 hours ago · A three-judge Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S Oka and BV Nagarathna overruled its 2015 decision in Union of India v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma which had held that High Courts do not have the power to entertain petitions under Article 226 challenging orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) under writ jurisdiction. herina firdausi