IN THB HIGH COURTJ3 v. Jamgahan Post Mukta
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Nirmal Sinha aged about 32 years S/o Nandram Sinha, R/o Village and post Hasod., Tahsil and Thana Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa Chain Singh Samle aged about 44 yea.rs, S/o Anand ram Samle R/o Village Adil Post Orda, Tahsil and Thana Malkharuda Distt. Janjgir Champa Dayaram Koshle aged about 58 years., S/o Kunjram Koshle^, R/o Village Post Jaijaipur Tahsil and Thana Malkharuda Distt. Janjgir Champa Jambulal Khunte aged about 25 years R/o Village jamgahan Post Mukta, Tahsil and Thana Malkharuda Distt. Janjgir Chinpa Bandhulal aged about 35 years.S/o Bodoram R/o Village and post Bandora Tahsil and Thana Malkharuda Distt. Janjgir Chmpa Tarjan Singh aged about 26 years, S/o Late Shri Kartikram R/o Village Post Piharid, Tahsil and Thana Malkharuda Distt. Janjgir Chmpa Rajkumar aged about 32 years S/o Deoram, R/o Village and post 11211 Odekera, TahsiI and Thana Malkharuda Distt. Janjgir Chmpa .^^"I APPLICATION FOR EXTBNSION AND MODIFICATION OF STAY ORDER DATED 04y08/06_PASSED UNDER SECTION - 116-B OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1951 @ XI-HC-22 3TI^T^)T f^TWW^T ^rf?cf ^W^) ^..1. -@ 3:sf ,=qT^T^r^ ^Tn^l$, f^^l^^< BTT^rq^^" ,^, / ^ Wq^TTgiTTRF^ 4<^^4*' ^[ 206 id^ ^TI^T ?^<rr^K ^f?cf chl^fcn41T1 ^TRoTt* ^f te^Ft <{^^l< ^3Tf^R'3TT^T 29/08/2006 Shri Parag Kotecha, coun^el for the appiicant.
None for the non-applicar^ts. Heard on maintainabiliti/ r of the Gpptication filed by the applicant for extension and modification of stay order dated 04/08/2006. Learned counsel for the| applicant frankly concedes that the appea! as required under Sectic[n People Act, 1951 (for short, "t|i® 116A. of the Representation of the Act") has already been filed in the Supreme Court of India. Section 116B (1) & (2) of [the Act reads as below: o^eration of order of High Jcation may be made to the of operation of an order ICourt under section 98 or [the expiration of the time therefrom and the High ;ient cause being shown and cjonditions as it may think fit, the order; but no shall be made to the High has been preferred to "116B. Stay of Court- (1) An oppt| High Court for made by the High section 99 before allowed for appeali^g Court may, on suffi on such terms and stay the operatio^ application for sta^ Court after an the Supreme Court.
(2) Where an appeaj an order made und^r app|eal has been prefcrred against section 98 or section 99, XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T f^TWW^T ^HTO^cT ^ 3%T ^Hld'4, ^y4!^, iG«YII'M'i<. 311^1 M5|cn <m^lT$h^lcb ^ 200 fd^ 3n^T?^TTW;CTf^T cbl^Id^-1 WT^ff ^ IWt <^l^l< ^3Tf^TW^T f, the Supreme Court \ay, on sufficient cause being shown and on si ch terms and conditions as it may think fit, s|Bay the operation of the order appealed from. " Bare reading of the provisio^is envisaged under Section 116B of the Act, it is manifest that no ap| the High Court after an appeal hc^s been preferred to the Supreme tlication for stay shall be made to Court and when an appeal has b^en preferred, the Supreme Court atone has power to stay the operati< pn of the order appealed from- Here in the instant this Court vide order dated p4/08/2006 granted stay on cert|iin conditions for a period of 15 {Jays and that period has expired/tl icrefore/this application has been |Fi!ed to extend the said period.
Af I'er filing of the appeal before the pupreme Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to grant stay, ^herefore, in the garb af extensio^ stay cannot be granted by this (pourt, therefore, the a^plication d< es not appear to be maintainable :or hearing, Therefore, AA.C.C.No.436 i^ rejected as not maintainable. 'onsequently, I.A.No.2667/2006 sto|nds disposed of. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge (^^f^) Raju f'
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.