Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 92 (1.48 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Anr vs Balbir Singh & Anr on 5 May, 1998

Chhaganbhai Lavjibhai Patodiya Died ... vs Nitinbahi Kanakbhai Vyas on 23 August, 2022

In case of Banwarilal (dead) by Lelga representatives and another vs. Balbir Singh, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 607, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, rules of procedure under Order 22 of Civil Procedure Code are designed to advance justice and should be so interpreted as not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring parties. On sufficient cause, delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased party on record should be condoned. It is further held therein that, procedure is meant only to facilitate the administration of justice and not to defeat the same.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Yatendra Singh Jafa vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 July, 2003

Mr. Sood pointed out that the scope of judicial review is very limited in respect of orders under Article 311(2)(c) and none of the contingencies/ grounds for interference engrafted, in the cases cited, did not exist in the present case and the decision in Balbir Singh' case (supra) squarely protected the respondents' action against the DIG and Commandant under Article 311(2)(b). Further action initialed against them under Article 311(2)(b) did not vitiate the action taken under article 3 11(2)(c) against the applicant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 36 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Shanti Devi Etc. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 18 February, 1999

"I have already dealt in great detail the reasons as to why the land in question cannot be termed as a developed area for applying the principle of cut. It also needs to be noticed that the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, has not given any specific finding in the entire judgment that the area in question is a developed area as commonly accepted.. Haphazard development would be of some consequence, but could no way be equated to a fully developed area. The purpose for which the land is acquired, the relevant records declaring the entire land as agricultural land and the fact that the sale deeds relate to comparatively small pieces of land would fully justify the application of the element of cut to the afore-said amount. It has been held above that 20 per cent cut on uniform basis would be a fair determination of the market value "of the land in question."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Sub/Maj Hanumansingh vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 January, 2026

22. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal, therefore, is ex facie contrary to the law laid down in this regard. The Tribunal, in our respectful opinion, was not justified in drawing, of itself, a causal connection between the hypertension and the obesity form which the petitioner was suffering, where no such causal connect is noticed either in the opinion of the RMB or even in the opinion of the specialist who had examined the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Union Of India vs Balbir Singh & Anr on 9 August, 2021

5. A perusal of the recovery certificate shows that a sum of Rs.39,58,017/- has been awarded in favour of the workman, as the award is granting benefits since 17th June, 1992. The effect of order dated 1st March, 2006 in WP(C) 8838/2003 titled UOI v. Balbir Singh on the plea for regularisation, as also the fact that the workman had not rendered any services for 18 years, would have to be considered by this Court.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs U.O.I.Thru Revenue Secretary North ... on 31 May, 2022

The petitioner also places reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swami Saran Saksena vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (1980) 1 SCC 12, Shyam Lal vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 1954 SC 369, J. D. Srivastava vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in (1984) 2 SCC 8, Smt. S.R. Venkataraman vs. Union of India and another, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 491, Brij Mohan Singh Chopra vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 188 and Union of India and another vs. Balbir Singh, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 216.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next