Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 9676 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Orissa State Road Transport ... vs Orissa State Road Transport ... on 3 November, 2000

The Divisional Manager vs G. Dharma Reddy on 15 March, 2022

7. Since the order of the learned Single Judge in the present case was exclusively based on the earlier decision dated 29-2-2012 [Ch. S. Kumar v. A.P. SRTC, 2012 SCC 1 (2019) 14 SCC 663 3 OnLine AP 1142] , a copy of that judgment has been placed on the record. The judgment of the Single Judge indicates that the earlier case also dealt with persons who were working as contract employees who were appointed after a regular selection. In some cases, termination orders were passed without an enquiry on allegations of misconduct while in other cases, an enquiry was conducted.
Telangana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Vitakula Satya Mani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 November, 2022

3. The petitioner had, thereafter, approached the trial Court by way of Crl.M.P.No.46 of 2022 for release of the deed of gift given in her favour and Registered under document No.111/1979 from the trial Court. However, this application was rejected by an order dated 23.02.2022. The trial Court, after considering Gagan Bihari Das and Ors., Vs. The State of Orissa1, had held that the claim of the petitioner over the property can only be under Section 457 Cr.P.C., and as, the house built on the property, has been shown as one of the disproportionate assets acquired by her husband, the same cannot be released to her as she has not demonstrated that the property does not fall under the category of disproportionate assets acquired by her late husband.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

Smt. Neera Yadav vs C.B.I. (Bharat Sangh) on 25 January, 2006

166. In the present case, three charge sheets contain offence under Section 13(1)(d) and (2) of Act of 1988 read with Section 120B, I.P.C. and one charge sheet is only under Section 13(1) (d) & (2) of the Act of 1988. The offences under Act of 1988 as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harihar Prasad (Supra), Kalicharan Mahapatra (Supra), which still holds field, does not come within the purview of word "in discharge of the official duty". Thus, the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B, I.P.C., would also not be within the term "in discharge of official duty" and, therefore, Section 197 Cr.P.C. has no application at all.
Allahabad High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Sobha Dei vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 22 October, 2025

In view of the above and considering the limited prayer to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered in Ashok Kumar Mohapatra (supra), this writ petition stands disposed of directing the competent authority to dispose of the case of the petitioner applying the decision rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Mohapatra (supra) by undertaking the entire exercise within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order."
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M S Raman - Full Document

Khirod Kumar Parida vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 22 October, 2025

In view of the above and considering the limited prayer to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered in Ashok Kumar Mohapatra (supra), this writ petition stands disposed of directing the competent authority to dispose of the case of the petitioner applying the decision rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Mohapatra (supra) by undertaking the entire exercise within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order."
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M S Raman - Full Document

Narendra Kumar Rout vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 22 October, 2025

In view of the above and considering the limited prayer to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered in Ashok Kumar Mohapatra (supra), this writ petition stands disposed of directing the competent authority to dispose of the case of the petitioner applying the decision rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Mohapatra (supra) by undertaking the entire exercise within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order."
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M S Raman - Full Document

(Pc No.517/06) (Rajendra Kr. Dani vs . State) on 2 January, 2007

4. The testimony of PW1 has remained unchallenged as no (PC No.517/06) (Rajendra Kr. Dani vs. State) : 3: one has come forward to oppose the petition. The testimony of PW1 is, therefore, deemed to be admitted. From the testimony of PW1, it has been proved that deceased Shri Nirmal Kumar Seth has died intestate leaving behind the properties mentioned in Annexure -B. In my view, there is no impediment to the grant of letter of administration in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly allowed. Letter of administration be issued in favour of the petitioner with regard to the estate mentioned in Annexure -B Ex.PW1/A on filing of administration bond with surety and requisite court fee. File be consigned to record room.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next