Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India Kunj Bihari Sharma & Ors vs Tara Chand Sharma & Ors. Union Of India & ... on 13 August, 1998

Smt. Inddu Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 January, 2021

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the application pending, which is finally disposed of with a direction to Sessions Judge, Mathura to consider and decide Criminal Revision No. 386 of 2019 (Smt. Indu Sharma Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma and others), expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months from the date, Court assumes normal functioning after Covid-19 Pandemic impact is over, provided there is no legal impediment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R B Singh - Full Document

Sreerangaraju.R vs Usha on 28 December, 2022

23. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondent that he is in living relationship with the petitioner nor is the case of the petitioner, on the contrary the petitioner has categorically stated that she was married to the respondent on 24.03.2002 at Kunigal Rangaswamy Temple, they led marital life in the respondent sister house at Kunigal and thereafter the respondent has taken her to Bengaluru and resided in a shared household where the respondent sister had alleged to have caused domestic violence. It is also her case from the marriage PW­3 Kum.Manasi was born to them. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she was not aware of the respondent first marriage and she came to know after six months about his marriage. As per Indira Sharma case stated supra para 38.4.(d) has held:
Bangalore District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dev Kishan Bhati vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 23 July, 2007

10. Learned Counsel Mr. Kuldeep Mathur arguing for the petitioner while emphasizing that the order in question was actuated by malice, has strenuously contended that from the facts undeniably available on record, it is established that the transfer in question has been brought about only at the instance of Pradhan; only because the petitioner refused to tow in her line; was nothing but an outcome of her animosity; and was intended to teach the petitioner a lesson. Learned Counsel submitted that such transfer, having not been made for any administrative exigency, cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel further emphasized that the transfer has been made in order to accommodate another person and deserves to be quashed for this reason too. Learned Counsel further contended that displacement of the petitioner although his wife is serving at the same place is contrary to the government policy. Learned Counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions in Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi v. U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. ; Kunj Bihari Sharma v. State and Ors. WLR 1994 Raj 456; Om Prakash Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. RLR 1989 (1) 826; Dr. P. Damodaran v. State of Kerala and Ors. 1982 (1) SLR 563; and Smt. Arti Surana v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2002 WLC (UC) 766.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Dharshan Lal Dhuper vs Smt. Motia Rani And Ors. on 24 March, 2004

In this connection, reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Shri Sham Bihari v. State and Ors. in Test Case No. 29/1993 decided on February 4, 2004 wherein it was held by this Court that it is not necessary to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant once an order is passed for proceeding ex parte as against the said defendant. The provision of Sub-rule (4) of Order 22 Rule 4, CPC could be made applicable to a case where a party even after receipt of notice did not appear and contest the proceeding nor filed any objection against the prayer of the petition. Therefore, the contention of the Counsel appearing for the respondents that the proceedings as against the respondent would stand vitiated, as no substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 3 was made, is devoid of merit and is rejected.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 16 - M Sharma - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr vs S.B. Vohra And Ors on 5 January, 2004

(vii) In the wake of Gulati's judgment, Court Masters and Superintendents also approached the High Court of Delhi by way of a writ petition (CWP No.2756 of 1991; Hari Sharma and Ors. vs. Union of India) which was allowed on 14.11.1991, following the reasoning in Mathur's case (supra). Accordingly, their pay fixation and payment of arrears were directed by this Hon'ble Court. The judgment was implemented. Here too, the matter attained finality, and the Government of India did not raise any objection.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 1560 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India vs Gaon Sabha on 23 April, 2015

Two questions are to be seen in the present matter as to who is LAC-56B/2015 Page No.8/15 owner and who is in possession. If IP No. 1 is held to be owner in possession then by implication of law, IP No. 1 will be entitled to 100% of compensation and if IP No. 2 is held so then IP No. 2 will be entitled to 100% of compensation but if ownership and possession vested differently in two parties then ratio will be decided as to who is entitled for how much share. The law in this respect is well settled. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Bihari & Ors. Vs. UOI 47 (1992) DLT 300.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

As 'Pyare vs . Financial Commissioner' Reported In ... on 27 April, 2013

10. Now, we comes to the question of disbursement of the compensation. Ld. Counsel for IP No.2 in this regard has placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case titled as 'Bihari & Ors. Vs. UOI' 47 (1992) DLT 300 and has argued that entire compensation should be given to IP No.2. I have perused this Judgment wherein the dispute was of a reference was u/s 18 of LA Act and not u/s 30­31 of LA Act and there was no issue involved between the parties of disbursement of the compensation between the owner and a person in actual physical possession.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharathi vs Central Silk Board on 24 March, 2026

Sl. Case Details Date of grant Date of death of No. of Temporary the employee Status 1 Union of India & others w.e.f. 23.09.2004 vs. Munni Devi 29.11.1989 2 S.K. Sharma vs. Union 29.11.1989 07.12.1994 of India 3 Santo Devi & others vs. w.e.f. 07.08.2009 The Secretary, ICAR, 01.09.1993 vide New Delhi & others order dated 03.01.1995 4 Kuntesh & Another vs. 01.12.1993 28.03.2012 Union of India & Another 5 Sharda Devi vs. Union of 29.11.1989 25.12.2006 India 6 Jagbiri Devi vs. M/o w.e.f. 30.11.2000 Communications 29.11.1989 vide order dated 30.09.1991
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yasodha vs Central Silk Board on 24 March, 2026

S Sarala Devi S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore 2026.03.24 11:50:19+05'30' 17 OA 558/2024 & 589/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Sl. Case Details Date of grant Date of death of No. of Temporary the employee Status 1 Union of India & others w.e.f. 23.09.2004 vs. Munni Devi 29.11.1989 2 S.K. Sharma vs. Union 29.11.1989 07.12.1994 of India 3 Santo Devi & others vs. w.e.f. 07.08.2009 The Secretary, ICAR, 01.09.1993 vide New Delhi & others order dated 03.01.1995 4 Kuntesh & Another vs. 01.12.1993 28.03.2012 Union of India & Another 5 Sharda Devi vs. Union of 29.11.1989 25.12.2006 India 6 Jagbiri Devi vs. M/o w.e.f. 30.11.2000 Communications 29.11.1989 vide order dated 30.09.1991
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next