Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Surajmal Jain vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 16 March, 1956

Gobind Ram Tilokchand vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 28 July, 1959

It is necessary to cite, for that purpose, only the decision of this Court, reported in Bhupal Chandra Dutt v. Governor General of India in Council, 52 Cal WN 808, and the two decisions of the Patna and the Nagpur High Courts, reported respectively in Surajmal Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1956 Pat 478 and State of Madras v. C. P. Agencies, AIR 1954 Nag 342, where the law on this point has been carefully analysed and explained. It is enough, for our present purpose, to refer in this connection to 52 Cal. W.N. 808 at p. 811 where his Lordship Chatterjee, J. as he then was, made the following significant observation on this particular point:
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ramanand vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 4 February, 1957

Learned counsel has also referred to a ruling of the Patna High Court in the case of Surajmal Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1956 Pat 478 (HJ, a ruling of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Commissioner's Court in the case of Gajjan Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1956 Him-Pra 9 (I), and also to a ruling of the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Ajmer, in Pyarelal Saxena v. Union of India, AIR 1955 Ajmer 57 (2) (J).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dominion Of India vs Purshottam Das Brijnandan Prasad on 2 September, 1959

Obviously the notice was not sent in the name of the plaintiff. Mr. Saran Behari Lal who argued the case elaborately for the respondents drew my attention to a recent decision of the Patna High Court in Surajmal Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1956 Pat 478. That is a case which does appear to be very near the case before me in certain respect. That was also a case of non-delivery of goods by the railway. The notice under Section 80 had been sent on behalf of firm Suraj Mal Mahabir Prasad, the consignee under the railway receipt but they were signed by Suraj Mal Jain of Katwa, district Burdwan.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharmender Sah vs Deptt Of Postal on 20 March, 2023

Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing in one of the OAs also does not dispute that the issued involved in the present OA is identical to that in the case of Mr. Sumit Surajmal (supra). However, Mr. Jain has raised preliminary objection i.e., (i) the applicant in OA No. 2222/2022, has not challenged the termination order dated 5.2.2021 and he has challenged only the relieving order dated 5.2.2022; (ii) the applicant was given conditional appointment keeping in view the conditions as incorporated in the impugned order.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaykumar Manojbhai Barot vs Posts on 4 August, 2023

7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since it is a case of impersonation, the applicant was not entitled for reinstatement on the post of Postal Assistant. The respondent was within his power in taking the specimen signatures from the applicant so as to ensure that applicant himself appeared in the examination. Since mismatch was found in the signature in OMR sheet from the specimen signature of the applicant, his request for reinstatement was declined. However, learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to controvert the law laid down in the matter of Atul Yadav, Sonu and in the case of Sumit Surajmal (supra).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Akshay Kumar vs D/O Postal on 25 July, 2023

7. We find that while placing reliance on the order dated 30.05.2021 passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.2444/2021 titled Page 4 of 5 5 OA Nos.200/104/2021 & 200/143/2021 as Shri Sumit Surajmal vs. UOI, the Principal Bench has disposed of OA No.2241/2022 and other connected two OAs directing the respondents to reinstate the applicants therein alongwith consequential benefits. However, on perusal of the order passed by the Principal Bench, we are unable to record our exclusive finding to the effect that the applicants are also similarly situated to that of applicants before the Principal Bench. But, since learned counsel for the applicants has very categorically stated that the present case is identical to OA No.2241/2022 and other connected two OAs decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, we dispose of both these OAs with a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the applicants in the light of the order passed by the Principal Bench ibid and extend the similar benefits to the present applicants also, if they are similarly placed. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amit vs D/O Postal on 25 July, 2023

7. We find that while placing reliance on the order dated 30.05.2021 passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.2444/2021 titled Page 4 of 5 5 OA Nos.200/104/2021 & 200/143/2021 as Shri Sumit Surajmal vs. UOI, the Principal Bench has disposed of OA No.2241/2022 and other connected two OAs directing the respondents to reinstate the applicants therein alongwith consequential benefits. However, on perusal of the order passed by the Principal Bench, we are unable to record our exclusive finding to the effect that the applicants are also similarly situated to that of applicants before the Principal Bench. But, since learned counsel for the applicants has very categorically stated that the present case is identical to OA No.2241/2022 and other connected two OAs decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, we dispose of both these OAs with a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the applicants in the light of the order passed by the Principal Bench ibid and extend the similar benefits to the present applicants also, if they are similarly placed. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next