Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 150 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 28 January, 2014

Sanjay Kumar vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 13 August, 2014

5 According to Sh. Yadav, Ld. SEM has not appreciated the facts and without considering the stance of appellant, ordered him to furnish bond. It has also been argued that there is nothing on record which may show that any such incident had taken place as no independent witness has either been cited or examined. He has also contended that wife of appellant had made a complaint against Tohfa and her other relatives and on the basis of such report, same police station i.e. police station Ambedkar Nagar had registered Criminal Appeal No. 10/2014 Sanjay Kumar Vs. State & Anr. 2 of 6 FIR No. 441/2013 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC on 16.09.2013 and Ld. SEM did not consider the aforesaid crucial aspect at all and the present kalandra has been prepared in order to pressurize appellant and his wife not to pursue the aforesaid FIR.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bibha Devi vs The State Election Commission ( ... on 18 October, 2016

In the light of the principles enunciated in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (AIR 1952 SC 64), Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, Anurag Narain Singh vs State of UP, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 303, C. Subrahmanyam v. K. Ramanjaneyullu, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 703, Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216], P. Manjula v. State of A.P., reported in (2007) 15 SCC 766, and the decision of this court, in Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 933, we are clearly of the view that the mandate of Article 243-O of the Constitution is that extraordinary jurisdiction of a High Court can only be invoked to facilitate and subserve the process of election and not to thwart or derail the process of election. In clear and unequivocal terms, the Constitution Bench, in Mohinder Singh Gill‟s case (supra), held that once the election process is complete, the result of election or election itself can be called in question only by way of an election petition and not by invoking High Court‟s jurisdiction under Article 226.
Patna High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 9 - C S Singh - Full Document

Akila Khatoon vs The State Election Commission ( ... on 18 October, 2016

In the light of the principles enunciated in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (AIR 1952 SC 64), Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, Anurag Narain Singh vs State of UP, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 303, C. Subrahmanyam v. K. Ramanjaneyullu, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 703, Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216], P. Manjula v. State of A.P., reported in (2007) 15 SCC 766, and the decision of this court, in Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 933, we are clearly of the view that the mandate of Article 243-O of the Constitution is that extraordinary jurisdiction of a High Court can only be invoked to facilitate and subserve the process of election and not to thwart or derail the process of election. In clear and unequivocal terms, the Constitution Bench, in Mohinder Singh Gill‟s case (supra), held that once the election process is complete, the result of election or election itself can be called in question only by way of an election petition and not by invoking High Court‟s jurisdiction under Article 226.
Patna High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - C S Singh - Full Document

Smt. K. Lakshmi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 26 February, 2021

Therefore, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court and various Courts in the above judgments, it is clear that the Court cannot hold that the scheme provided for making application on compassionate ground must be done in accordance with the procedure, if the application is made beyond the period prescribed under the scheme, rejection is justified and therefore, the rejection of application of the petitioners in the present case is justifiable.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

D.Umapathy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 21 June, 2019

7. The impugned order as much as states that the order that the application for compassionate appointment is barred is not correct. The contention of Ms.Ananthi, learned counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted. Unfortunately that is not sufficient to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Compassionate appointment is given to the family to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death or due to retirement on the basis of medical unfitness. That is the object behind granting appointment on compassionate basis. The employer cannot be asked to wait till the person eligible to get compassionate appointment attains the age of majority. The department had correctly placed reliance on judgment of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, wherein in identical circumstances, http://www.judis.nic.inthe Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, a claim of 6 compassionate appointment cannot await till the person who seeks on compassionate basis appointment attains age of majority.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Nabanita Lahkar vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 11 March, 2020

In view of the reasons stated above, this Court relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, as the same was made earlier in point of time. Thus, this Court holds that there cannot be a reservation of vacancy for compassionate appointment till such time a minor becomes a major. Also, the application for compassionate appointment has been Page No.# 5/5 filed 11 (eleven) years after the death of the petitioner's father, without anything to show that the petitioner's mother was ineligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate basis.
Gauhati High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - M Zothankhuma - Full Document

Jahangir Alom Laskar vs The Commissioner And Secretary To The ... on 23 March, 2022

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra) and keeping in view the fact that 18 years have elapsed between the date of the death of the Government servant and the filing of the present writ petition, this Page No.# 3/3 Court finds that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Gauhati High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - M Zothankhuma - Full Document

Prabhu Nandan Prasad & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 September, 2014

3. This is to be noted that said order of the Division Bench dated 26.12.2012 passed in LPA no. 953 of 2012 arose out of an order dated 11.09.2012 passed by Hon'ble single Judge of this Court in case of Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2013(2) PLJR 80, wherein Hon'ble single Judge has dealt with an earlier order of Division Bench of this Court in case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 1039.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - C S Singh - Full Document

Selvi J.Shoba vs The Director General Of Police / on 15 March, 2019

(iii) In Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and http://www.judis.nic.in 16 Others, reported in 2000 (7) SCC 192, the petitioner was 10 years old, and his mother working as a Excise Constable, died. He made an application on 02.06.1988, soon after the death of his mother, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application was rejected on 10.12.1996. Fresh application subsequently made was also rejected on 21.04.1997. Being aggrieved by the same, he preferred a writ petition before the High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and that the same was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. On appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph No.3, held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next