Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.84 seconds)
Documents citing Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972

Sadhan Datta vs State Of Tripura And Ors. on 26 June, 2007

17. The Supreme Court in (North Zone Cultural Centre and Anr v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar) while following its earlier decision in Raj Kumar (supra) and in reference to the other judgments of Supreme Court in Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi ; Union of India v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy (2001) 1 SCC 158 has observed that the resignation becomes effective on acceptance even if not communicated. Non communication of the acceptance does not make the resignation inoperative provided there is in fact an acceptance before the withdrawal when the relevant rules not postulating communication of acceptance as a condition precedent for coming into effect of resignation. Employee tendering resignation with immediate effect and employer accepting the same on the same day but communicating the acceptance to the employee after 13 days. During the intervening period, the employee withdrawing his resignation. Such delay of mere 13 days, held, not an undue delay so as to infer that resignation has not already been accepted. Even the continued attendance to duty and signing of attendance register by the said employee during the intervening period held, of no assistance to claim that the resignation had not taken effect. More so, when there was no responsible officer in the office during that time and taking the advantage of that situation the employee had marked his attendance, hence the High Court's decision holding that communication of the acceptance of resignation subsequent to withdrawal of the resignation by the employee had become redundant was held improper.
Gauhati High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - R B Misra - Full Document

Shri G.S. Rathore vs The Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... on 21 June, 2007

5. The Central Administrative Tribunal, while referring to the provisions of Section 22(3) and Order XI of the of C.P.C. and while following its own orders passed in different cases, as referred to above (supra), recorded a finding that the tribunal had no power to direct the respondents to answer the interrogatories, as there was no specific provision in the Act. Along with the misc. petition praying for serving the schedule of interrogatories to be answered by the respondents, the petitioner had also enclosed the schedule containing as many as 20 questions. These questions related to certain facts and intended to discover certain legal evidence by requiring the respondents to answer them. For example, the questions were asked with regard to the specifications of quantitative and qualitative or financial targets provided for the year ending 1993. The questions were also directed towards finding out what was the evidence for recording of certain reports.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - S Kumar - Full Document

Sonu Textiles And Ors. vs Punjab National Bank on 11 October, 2007

5. The Central Administrative Tribunal, while referring to the provisions of Section 22(3) and Order XI of Civil Procedure Code and while following its own orders passed in different cases, as referred to above (supra), recorded a finding that the tribunal had no power to direct the respondents to answer the interrogatories, as there was no specific provision in the Act. Along with the misc. petition praying for serving the schedule of interrogatories to be answered by the respondents, the petitioner had also enclosed the schedule containing as many as 20 questions. These questions related to certain facts and intended to discover certain legal evidence by requiring the respondents to answer them. For example, the questions were asked with regard to the specifications of quantitative and qualitative or financial targets provided for the year ending 1993. The questions were also directed towards finding out what was the evidence for recording of certain reports.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - S Kumar - Full Document

Dr. Nayna D/O Dnyanoba Pawar (Patil) vs Dr. Vimal W/O Nandkishor Mundada And ... on 2 November, 2007

27. The Government Resolution, referred to above, specifically provides procedure for acceptance of the resignation tendered by a Government employee. The resignation cannot be deemed to have been accepted only because the concerned immediate superior officer certified that there was no dues recoverable and there was no objection for acceptance of the resignation. The acceptance of the resignation is not a mere formality or ministerial act. It requires serious consideration. For example, if due to some reason or other, all Medical Officers in the State, together decide to tender resignations in protest of certain policies or on account of allurement of some other employment in private sector, the Government may have a right to reject the requests and to take suitable administrative actions if the employees act to the contrary of the service conditions. So, it cannot be said that merely because the petitioner did not report to the duty and had not obtained pecuniary benefits, she was no more in government employment with effect from 13th or 14th September, 2004. I am not impressed by the argument that her discontinuation of the employment and not being holder of office of profit are two distinct concepts. I am of the opinion that both these concepts are intertwined and are integral part of the service conditions, particularly, in the context of a Government employee like the petitioner. It is unfortunate that she could not contest the election and also is subsequently out of the Government service due to acceptance of her resignation. But that is not of any consequence in so far as merits of the Election Petition are concerned.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - V R Kingaonkar - Full Document

Mahesh Chand And Ors. vs Nishar Khan on 30 October, 2007

In the case oilndarmal (supra), it is held that the cases of Narain v. Smt. Ansuyiya 1990 MPJR 517 and Naraian v. Basant Rao 1991(1) MPWN 166, were not considered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Jarina v. Hazzanbai 2001 (II) MPJR 326. In both the cases, eviction order was passed and thereafter during pendency of the revision, landlord died and, therefore, it has been held that the eviction order could not be interfered with due to death of special category landlord during pendency of the revision.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - P K Jaiswal - Full Document

Vijay Kumar vs Kamlesh Rani on 23 March, 2007

The reliance by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in the case of T. Ramachandlaiah v. N.R. Suyodhanan (supra) is totally misconceived as in the said case the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to set aside the order which allowed the interrogatories to be answered without going into the relevance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Anr. A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1302 to contend that the questions which are relevant for cross-examination are not necessarily relevant as interrogatories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case was pleased to lay down that the only questions that are relevant as interrogatories or those relating to any other question, the interrogatories served must have reasonably disclosed connection with matter in issue.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1