Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Union Of India on 14 February, 2019
180. Again, the Court, while interpreting Article 239 in Union of
India and others v. Surinder S. observed:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.72 seconds)Documents citing
Union Of India & Ors vs Surinder S on 11 October, 2012
Ranjeet Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 November, 2025
8. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of
India and Others v. S. 100,, while
S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100
speaking through Justice S.B Sinha observed that,
"19.
Ranjeet Kumar Singh And Others vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ... on 3 November, 2025
8. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of
India and Others v. S. 100,, while
S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100
speaking through Justice S.B Sinha observed that,
"19.
Sahib Dyal vs Pspcl And Anr on 3 November, 2025
8. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of
India and Others v. S. 100,, while
S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100
speaking through Justice S.B Sinha observed that,
"19.
Sat Pal Singh Bukal vs M/O Defence on 13 July, 2018
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the claim, as
raised by the applicant, has already been set at rest in CWP No.33946
of 2014 titled UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS. S . RANJIT SAMUEL,
decided on 14.2.2017 (Annexure A-8), by the Hon'ble Madras High
Court. He argues that when earlier, the applicant had raised his claim
with the respondents in 2014, he was informed that same cannot be
granted to him, as the case was pending consideration before the
Hon'ble Madras High Court, at that point of time. However, since the
awaited decision has come, there is no earthily reason with the
respondents to deny consideration of claim of the applicant for grant of
indicated benefit.
1