Pankaj Kr Pathak vs M/O Defence on 20 September, 2016
well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not
challenge the wrongful action in their cases and
acquiesced into the same and woke up after long
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 386 (0.87 seconds)Dr Monil Singhai vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 23 February, 2016
filed the Writ Petition (now T.A.)
challenging the illegal and arbitrary actions of the respondents in the
manner in which they had carried ... newly being
established AIIMS. She had claimed that such wrongful action of the
Respondents had deprived of her rightful appointment to the post of
Assistant
Meenakshi vs Govt. Of Nctd on 2 November, 2016
well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the
wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the
same and woke up after long
Rama Nand vs M/O Labour on 14 December, 2016
well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful
action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke
D C Mehndiratta vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 5 September, 2016
aggrieved person chooses not to challenge the wrongful action
in his case and acquiesces to the same and wakes after a long delay
to seek
Jai Singh Jain vs Govt. Of Nctd on 20 August, 2016
notified on
1.06.2011 was given to the Pharmacists not because of any
action or misrepresentation on the part of the applicant. It was
admittedly ... they cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own
wrong action or omission.
8. Taking into account the aforementioned discussion, the
facts
Uma Shanker Mishra vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 23 July, 2016
years'
experience of working in any of the Laboratories, as wrongly claimed by
him. It was further alleged by the applicant that the date ... right to defend its
actions, and to say that no wrong action was taken at any stage, but then
it cannot take it upon itself
Neeta Dutta vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 28 April, 2016
well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the
wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the
same and woke up after long
Sugan Yadav vs M/O Railways on 15 January, 2016
meaning thereby that it
was not a continuing wrong based on a recurring cause of
action. The claim to be paid the correct salary computed ... paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh
cause of action, based on continuing wrong. Though the lesser
payment may be a consequence of the error
Satish Kumar vs M/O Railways on 4 March, 2016
removed which led to a wrong conclusion and
consequently wrong is also remedied. For adopting such a
course of action, the Court is guided