Friday, 10 May 2013

Correction by the Reader named Mani

Dear Readers,
                 A correction is suggested by the reader named Mani in my post. I welcome it and beg your pardon. Mani, I am extremely grateful to you. So my post named  "UGC Cannot Move in SC against Nagpur High Court Verdict should be read in the following context. Thank you.
Regards,
Mr. Mahajan
Nagpur
Maharashtra.

              "The lawyer of the UGC had asked the honourable judges in the court that UGC should be allowed to file petition for stay order against the verdict of Nagpur High Court's verdict in Supreme Court." This is not right. Advocate Mishra requested to stay the order of the same court for some time for getting enough time to move the matter in to SC. The order contained an action to be executed (issue of certificate) and thus to not to take the preparation for that action, a stay was required to UGC. But the court rejected to stay its own order for benefit of UGC. Only stay appeal is rejected. Not the power/right of UGC to move SC. They have to approach SC at a sudden because of rejection of stay. Yet by virtue of this appeal to stay, UGC got a benefit. Instead of normal one month , the court prolonged the period to 8 weeks or 2 months"       
                                               ----- Mani                                                                                                         

4 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. sir, whats happening now about kerala high court decision

    ReplyDelete
  3. What happen to Kerala High Court Double bench decision .. when they are going to announce :(

    ReplyDelete
  4. COME ON FRIENDS DO NOT SLEEP.UPDATE YOUR SITE.UGC HAS FILED SLP AGAINST US IN SUPREME COURT AGAINST NAGPUR HIGH COURT VERDICT.SO IT IS TIME TO GIVE SUPREME COURT NEWS.CASE NUMBER 19933/2013.THANKS.

    ReplyDelete

Featured post

hi