Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 349 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 March, 1989

P.K. Maidamwar vs Shri Malay Shrivastava Principal ... on 17 March, 2026

8. Perusal of both the judgments in the case of K. Samba Moorthy (supra) & Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, shows that in both the decisions ratio of previous decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 166; (3 judge Bench); A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, (2003) 7 SCC 238 (3 judge Bench); and Union of India vs. B.M. Jha (2007) 11 SCC 632 has not been taken into consideration, therefore, I am bound to follow the decision given by this Court in the case of Atul Bajapei (supra) which is based on the decisions in the cases of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 166; State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1996 SC 2936; Union of India vs. B.M. Jha, (2007) 11 SCC 632; and K. Ananda Rao and others vs. S.S. Rawat, IAS and others, (2019) 13 SCC 24.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - D D Bansal - Full Document

S.Ramalingam vs The Chairman And Managing Director on 31 August, 2009

3. Thereafter the appellant filed Writ Petition No.14371 of 1999 challenging the order dated 21.12.1998 promoting the appellant with retrospective effect from 8.11.1994 without giving monetary benefit and the same was dismissed by the learned single Judge after narrating the facts of filing of earlier writ petition and subsequent filing of the contempt application and taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PALURU RAMAKRISHNAIAH VS. UNION OF INDIA (1989 2 SCC 541) by holding that the appellant herein is not entitled to the benefit sought for in the writ petition in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of PALURU RAMAKRISHNAIAH VS. UNION OF INDIA and unless the seniority list is prepared and finalised and promotions are made in accordance with the rules on the basis of the seniority list, the question of entitlement to work in the promotional posts does not arise. The correctness of the same is now canvassed before us in this writ appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Inter University Accelerator Centre vs Manisha Rani & Ors on 3 August, 2023

1985] and the judgments of the Tribunal following the said decision lay down good law and constitute good precedents to be allowed in similar cases. We reject the contentions of the interveners to the contrary and further hold that having urged before the Supreme Court their various contentions and their SLP having been dismissed by the Supreme Court, they cannot reagitate the matter before us. We, therefore, dismiss MP Nos. 3396, 3397, 3493 and 3494 of 1991 in OA No. 2407 of 1988 as being devoid of any merit.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Atul Bajapei vs Mr. V. N. Ambade on 27 February, 2026

Further, in all these decisions, previous decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and others (supra) (3 judge Bench); State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta (supra); A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-02-2026 14:20:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552 CONC-4869-2024 10 (supra) (3 judge Bench); and Union of India v. B.M. Jha (supra) have not been taken into consideration, so the decisions relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner, do not provide any assistance to the questions involved in the instant contempt petition.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - D D Bansal - Full Document

Dinesh Sharma S/O Ramniwas Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 March, 2026

59. The law laid down above has consistently been followed and it is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/executive instructions in contravention of the statutory rules. However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant it. Such instructions should be subservient to the statutory provisions. (Vide Union of India v. Majji Jangamayya (1977) 1 SCC 606, P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P. (1987) 3 SCC 622, Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 541, C. Rangaswamaiah v. Karnataka Lokayukta (1998) 6 SCC 66 and Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation (2011) 5 SCC 435)
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anita Choudhary D/O Shravanlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 March, 2026

59. The law laid down above has consistently been followed and it is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/executive instructions in contravention of the statutory rules. However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant it. Such instructions should be subservient to the statutory provisions. (Vide Union of India v. Majji Jangamayya (1977) 1 SCC 606, P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P. (1987) 3 SCC 622, Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 541, C. Rangaswamaiah v. Karnataka Lokayukta (1998) 6 SCC 66 and Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation (2011) 5 SCC 435)
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mallu Ram Katariya, S/O Ganesh Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 March, 2026

59. The law laid down above has consistently been followed and it is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/executive instructions in contravention of the statutory rules. However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant it. Such instructions should be subservient to the statutory provisions. (Vide Union of India v. Majji Jangamayya (1977) 1 SCC 606, P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P. (1987) 3 SCC 622, Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 541, C. Rangaswamaiah v. Karnataka Lokayukta (1998) 6 SCC 66 and Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation (2011) 5 SCC 435)
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Lal Chaudhary, S/O Madan Lal ... vs The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board ... on 18 March, 2026

59. The law laid down above has consistently been followed and it is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/executive instructions in contravention of the statutory rules. However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant it. Such instructions should be subservient to the statutory provisions. (Vide Union of India v. Majji Jangamayya (1977) 1 SCC 606, P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P. (1987) 3 SCC 622, Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 541, C. Rangaswamaiah v. Karnataka Lokayukta (1998) 6 SCC 66 and Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation (2011) 5 SCC 435)
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next