Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 162 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Om Prakash vs State Of Haryana on 7 July, 2011

Ram Pal And Ors vs Land Acquisition Collector And Ors on 31 May, 2019

26. For village Fajjupur Majra Neemka, Hadbast No.98, while deciding 49 cases, lead case of which was LA Case No.443 of 2011 'Om Parkash Vs. State of Haryana and others' on 11.07.2013, the same amount of compensation @ Rs.1118/- per square yard (Rs.54,11,120/- per acre) was granted while following the earlier views. The same was followed by awards dated 25.04.2014 and 18.03.2015.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 3 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Mrs Geetha Kumar vs Posts on 21 June, 2023

The Learned Counsel for Respondent placed rellance upon Order dated 03.09.2013 in WMP No.19390 of 2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Jagdish Kumar vs, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation "However, interest will not carry on medical bills if found payable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court In OM Parkash Gargi vs. State of Punjab, (1996) 11 SCC 399", The Learned Counsel for Respondent also placed reliance upon Order dated 19.08,2014 in LPA No.1124 of 2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the matter of Om Parkash vs. State of Haryana and Ors, "In the present appeal, the appellant is insisting on payment of interest on some delayed payment of medical re-imbursement as well as awarding of cost upon the respondents. The learned Single Judge has declined both these prayers, while relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gm Parkash Garg! vs. State of Punjab, (1996) 11 SCC 399, We are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined the payment of interest on the delayed payment of medical reimbursement as well as awarding of costs upon the respondents. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has passed appropriate directions, granting relief to the appellant, to consider his claim in accordance with Jaw. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Learned Single Judge".
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next