Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Ramesh Chandra Dutt vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 5 October, 1964

Amar Singh Gautam And Anr vs G Block Resident Welfare Association ... on 7 July, 2020

In Union of India vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (1997) 8 SCC 683 and in Union of India Vs. Lalman MANU/MP/0147/1953; Swarnalata Barua Vs. Union of India AIR 1963 GAU 117; Ramesh Chandra Dutt vs. Union of India LPA No. 170/2020 Page 12 of 15 AIR 1965 PAT 167 (DB); Yatayat Nigam vs. Union of India (UOI) AIR 1983 RAJ 17; and Sajeeda Begum Vs. Divisional Railway Manager (Safety), S.E. Railways and Ors. MANU/OR/0236/2004(DB) also, the view is that the railway and civic authorities though not having a statutory duty under the Railways Act to build a wall along the railway track, under the General Law have a duty of care and to prevent people from, though illegally, endangering themselves.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Tima Mali And Ors. vs Kartika Meher And Ors. on 1 September, 1981

While exercising the writ jurisdiction it has also been held that where the causes of action of several petitioners is based upon a common question, namely, though they were holding ad hoc appointments for more than eighteen months, they were required to sit at a written examination and had not been called to the viva voce test on the plea of having failed in the written examination. The opposite parties are common so far as each of the petitioners is concerned. Keeping the provisions of Order 1 of Civil P. C. in view, these petitioners could file one writ petition as the law is fairly settled that in such circumstances, a common application would be tenable. (See Rama Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India (1980) 49 Cut Lt 266).
Orissa High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nilamadhaba Nanda And Ors. vs Orissa University Of Agriculture And ... on 14 September, 1982

Allahabad, AIR 1979 All 128; Krishnatosh Dass Gupta v. Union of India, (1979) 3 Serv LR 681 : (1979 Lab IC 1154) (Cal); Badan Singh Sangwan v. State of Haryana, (1980) 1 Serv LR 528 (Punj & Har); Rama Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, (1980) 49 Cut LT 266 and Harish Chandra Tewari v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., AIR 1981 All 144.
Orissa High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 5 - R C Patnaik - Full Document

Sh. Rakesh Saini And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 12 November, 2003

20. It was found in that case that the railway line crossed a busy road near a railway junction and it was also a shunting area where tains would pass now and then without any one even knowing whether it was time for a train to pass. On both flanks of the road high heaps of construction material for the road were stacked and the driver of the lorry could not have a clear view of the railway crossing. At about the time that the truck was on the railway track shunting was going on and railway engine which was being shunted at the fast speed together with a break-van, collided with the truck without giving it any warning. The truck was badly damaged and the driver and the cleaner were killed instantaneously. In these circumstances, the Court held that the antecedent conduct of the railway administration is not making proper arrangement to forewarn passers about approaching train where a busy road passed to cross the railway track, by way of signals or otherwise made the railway administration liable and all the more so because it was a shunting area. There could be no question of contributory negligence on the part of lorry driver inasmuch as it was the obvious duty of the railway administration to take adequate steps to warn the public of the approaching trains.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - A K Sikri - Full Document

K.C. Mohanty vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 January, 1985

7. The petitioner has specifically asserted in his writ application that ever since his promotion as Junior D. T. I. on 11-3-77 he has been performing his duty satisfactorily and that no defect in his work has been noticed. This assertion has not been denied by the opposite parties in their counter. In the present case the petitioner after working as Junior D. T. I. for more than three years was required to take a written examination and a viva-voce test for regularisation of his promotion. It appears from the counter of the opposite parties that the petitioner passed the written examination but failed at the viva-voce test. The question is whether the petitioner should have been declared unsuccessful at the viva-voce test after working in the promotional post for more than three years. This question was examined earlier by this court in the case of Rama Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India (1980) 49 Cut LT 266, and at was answered in the following words :
Orissa High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rakesh Saini And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 12 November, 2003

20. It was found in that case that the railway line crossed a busy road near a railway junction and it was also a shunting area where trains would pass now and then without any one even knowing whether it was time for a train to pass. On both flanks of the road high heaps of construction material for the road were stacked and the driver of the lorry could not have a clear view of the railway crossing. At about the time that the truck was on the railway track shunting was going on and railway engine which was being shunted at the fast speed together with a break-van, collided with the truck without giving it any warning. The truck was badly damaged and the driver and the cleaner were killed instantaneously. In these circumstances, the Court held that the antecedent conduct of the railway administration is not making proper arrangement to forewarn passers about approaching train where a busy road passed to cross the railway track, by way of signals or otherwise made the railway administration liable and all the more so because it was a shunting area. There could be no question of contributory negligence on the part of lorry driver inasmuch as it was the obvious duty of the railway administration to take adequate steps to warn the public at the approaching trains.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next