Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 359 (2.49 seconds)
Documents citing Bhoop Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 29 April, 1992

Sandeep Kumar Richhariya vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 February, 2008

6. We have perused the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) cited by Mr. Jain and we find that in the said decision the Apex Court has held that if a person entitled to a relief chooses to remain silent for long and thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of others that he was not interested in claiming that relief, then others are justified in acting on that belief and this is more so in service matters where vacancies are required to be filled up. The Supreme Court found in the facts Writ Appeal No1880 of 2007 of that case that Bhoop Singh who had been terminated from service, challenged the order of termination after lapse of 22 years without any cogent explanation for the inordinate delay and thereafter filed a writ petition for reinstatement on the ground that others similarly dismissed had been reinstated pursuant to their earlier writ petitions filed by them. Hence by the time he approached the Court after 22 years, the vacancy of Bhoop Singh had been filled up and number of recruitments had taken place to different vacancies thereafter and by the inordinate and unexplained delay, a situation had been created, which could not be reversed by his reinstatement.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

B.N Reddy, E 270605, vs Apsrtc, on 21 August, 2024

57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court (AIR 1967 1450) and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India { (1992) 3 SCC 136}.
Telangana High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - N Bheemapaka - Full Document

Tek Chand vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 17 November, 2000

In Bhoop Singh's case, market value was fixed at Rs. 7,000/- per bigha whereas in Tek Chand's case, market value was fixed at Rs. 8,000/-per bigha. Wrongly and due to some inadvertence it was thought that Rs. 8,000/- per bigha had been assessed the market value of land of village Badli acquired through notification dated 24.1.0.1961. Noticing this factual mistake, another Reference Court in L.A.C. No. 387/81 of Village Naharpur had declined to rely upon these two decisions as an instance.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - M Mudgal - Full Document

B. Srinivasulu, Conductor, S/O. ... vs Apsrtc, Rep By Its Managing Director, on 20 August, 2024

57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court (AIR 1967 1450) and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India { (1992) 3 SCC 136}.
Telangana High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - N Bheemapaka - Full Document

B. Balraj, vs The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, on 19 April, 2024

57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court (AIR 1967 1450) and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India { (1992) 3 SCC 136}.
Telangana High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - J Sridevi - Full Document

K Asaithambi vs Health And Family Welfare on 18 June, 2024

In the case of Bhoop Singh v. UOI, the Apex Court held that "it is expected of a government servant who has legitimate claim to approach the Court for the relief he seeks within a reasonable period. This is necessary to avoid dislocating the administrative set up after it has been functioning on a certain basis for years. The impact on the administrative set-up and on other employees is a strong reason to decline consideration of a state claim unless the delay is satisfactorily explained and is not attributable to the claimant. The lapse of a much longer unexplained 11 MA 556 /2023 in OA 949/2011 period of several years in the case of the petitioner is a strong reason to not classify him with the other dismissed Constable who approached the Court earlier and got reinstatement. There is another aspect of the matter. Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches is by itself a ground to refuse relief to the petitioner, irrespective of the merit of his claim. If a person entitled to a relief chooses to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of others that he is not interest in claiming that relief."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harinder Singh & Ors vs Lt. Governor & Anr on 29 March, 2019

12. The Court in its order dated 20th April 2018 in Bhoop Singh (supra) noted how the counsel for the Petitioners in that case candidly admitted to having received both the compensation as well as the enhanced compensation. The counsel for the Petitioners there contended that "the Petitioners are in actual physical cultivating possession of the land and crops W.P.(C) 9698/2017 Page 7 of 11 are standing over the land in question." There too, just as in the present application for amendment, a reference was made to the scheme of allotment of alternative plots and the argument of the learned counsel that they should be granted alternative plots. In para 9 of the order dated 20th April 2018 the said submission was recorded by this Court as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next