Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 246 (1.51 seconds)
Documents citing Suresh Kumar & Ors.Dalmia Cement ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 April, 1996

Suresh Kumar vs Union Of India & Others on 15 November, 2014

7. In the application, the case of the applicant, nephew of the defendant no. 3, is that in the year 1976, father of the applicant Late Shri Suresh Watharkar got the shop/platform i.e. the suit property for consideration of Rs.2 lacs from the erstwhile owner/allottee SR and used to do the business from the suit property under the name and style "M/s. S. Fish Corner". In the year 1992, the applicant joined his father in the said business. His father died on 03.01.1997. Since then, the applicant has been in perpetual possession of the suit property. The defendant no. 3, uncle of the applicant, used to look after the business. By passage of time, the defendant no. 3 started keeping evil eyes on the business of the applicant and also started threatening the applicant and his mother to hand over the suit property and 3/15 Suresh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suresh Kumar vs . Uoi on 29 March, 2007

Suresh Kumar vs. UOI 254/78 entitled UOI Vs. Bharat Singh & Anr. wherein land notified u/s 4 on 06.4.64 in village Molarband was assessed @ Rs. 12,000/- per bigha. Reference was therein made to the fact that village Molarband had same potentiality as the land in village Badarpur and it was also observed that village Molarband is adjacent to village Aali and Badarpur. It was further observed that the same rate had been awarded for the land notified u/s 4 on 06.4.64 in village Badarpur. The location and potentiality of village Aali as such appears to be more comparable to village Jaitpur and Badarpur than village Jasola, Tuglakabad, Tehkhand wherein development had commenced. Even in reference proceedings pertaining to award no 9/94-95 it was noticed that no substantial development had taken place in village Aali as the land had been largely acquired in village Ali and Jaitpur for construction of ash pond. Thus, no substantial development appears to have commenced in the village. Further the land could only be used for agricultural purposes. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that it may not be prudent to assess the value of land comparing it with village Jasola, Bahapur and Tuglakabad. As such Ex. P4, P5 and P6 are not relevant to assess the value of land. The authorities relied by the petitioner as such are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suresh Kumr Panchal vs D/O Post on 20 December, 2017

5. The applicant preferred a representation to Director General(Posts), Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi, on 15.3.2011 against the order dated 27.12.2010, for considering his request sympathetically and to allow him to serve the department. On receipt of representation of the applicant, respondent no.1 vide letter dated 2.2.2012 has directed respondent no.2 to consider his request favourably, if there exists a vacant post of PA. In pursuance of memo dated 2.2.2012, respondent no.3 vide order dated 15.3.2012 had accepted the request of the applicant for withdrawal of resignation and the applicant was directed to join his duties at Kurukshetra H.O. In the said order, respondent no.3 has specifically mentioned that during the period of absence from duty i.e. from 16.2.2010 till he join duty will not be entitled to any salary on the principle of " No Work No Pay", however, the applicant is free ( O.A.NO. 060/00893/2016 ) 4 ( Suresh Kumar vs. UOI & Ors.) to convert the intervening period into leave of any kind admissible to him at that time. On receipt of order dated 15.3.2012, the applicant joined his duty on 16.3.2012 and requested the respondent department for treating his intervening period as spent on duty. When no reply was received by him, the applicant through his counsel served a legal notice dated 19.8.2014 for paying him salary for the intervening period i.e. 16.2.2010 to 15.3.2012, but the same was replied by the department vide letter dated 17.10.2014 that the applicant is not entitled to any relief.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Sri Manohar Lal vs Union Of India Through on 24 December, 2014

15. We have also taken note of the fact that the relevant Rule 3 of the examination rules has not been challenged in this proceeding. As per the requirement of the UPSC, candidates were required to submit their applications online. Out of 63 eligible candidates only 38 had applied to appear in the examination and finally 35 took the examination. As noticed hereinabove, the amendment dated 17.10.2008 amending Rule 12(1) of the Rules of 1964 has already been upheld in the case of Suresh Kumar versus Union of India (supra). We also find that there is no merit in the challenge to the dates of examination. It is easy to make allegations but difficult to prove the same. In the instant case, we find that allegations regarding the eligibility dates being discriminatory remain mere allegations on account of lack of substance.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gujarat State Sugar Federation Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Served Thro' The ... on 20 November, 2006

This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that effect of batching oil upon consumers and contamination of food products in the jute bags was never argued in Dalmiya's case. Secondly, for the reason that every year is a separate year and therefore, what is fixed by the Central Government in the year 1987 is not valid for all time to come even after passage of two long decades. Thirdly for the reason that it has been observed in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the judgment that the Central Government shall keep in mind the competing right to carry on trade or business guaranteed to citizen or person is also to be protected (para-31) and it is a question of fact to be considered in each case as to what percentage is required to be fixed. (para 32). Fourthly for the reason that the whole case of Dalmiya was of the year 1987 reservation. The Act came into force in the year 1987. The Standing Advisory Committee advised for 100% production to be packed in jute packaging material. (para 29 of the judgment). Whereas in the present case, SAC's advice is 70% and 75%. Fifthly for the reason that looking to the quantum of import, it was 54 tonnes from Bangladesh, Nepal and other neighbouring countries (para-6 of the judgment). Whereas, in the present case, the import is 1,55,660 tonnes of jute from neighbouring countries. Sixthly, for the reason the factors which ought to have weighed with the Central Government before issuing the notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act are Page 0368 referred in Sections 3 and 4 whereas, in the facts of the present case, the extraneous considerations have weighed with the Central Government.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - D N Patel - Full Document

Arjun Singh vs Pradeep Soni on 7 February, 2024

''We are bound by the principle laid down in the case of Smt. Indrakala Agrawal (supra) and in W.P.No. 7260/2021 (Suresh Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others) dated 07.04.2021 as modified in RP No. 408/2021 (National Highways Authority of India vs. Smt.Indrakala Agrawal and others). The NHAI/ review petitioners shall have the right to challenge the validity of the original award passed by the LAO in accordance with the law.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document

A.P. Kerosene Wholesale Dealers ... vs Commissioner Of Civil Supplies, ... on 21 March, 2003

In Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) the Supreme Court was considering constitutional validity of Jute Packaging Material (Compulsory Use in Packing Commodities) Act, 1987. The petitioners who are manufacturers of cement, sugar and other commodities and plastic bags challenged the said Act as imposing unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court rejected the submission and held that it is for the Central Government to decide as executive policy as to what percentage of jute bags is required to be used and whether or not such measure is required to protect the jute industry. It was further held:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amarjeet Singh Chawla And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 May, 2022

SANJEEV KUMAR BHAKRI VS. UNION OF INDIA 903 5902/2019 01.11.2016 31.10.2021 INFRUCTUOUS AND ANR 904 5903/2019 SURESH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 01.11.2016 31.10.2021 INFRUCTUOUS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ W.P.(C) 62/2019 & connected matters Page 111 of 167 Signing Date:23.05.2022 09:23:48 SARVENDRA VIKRAM SINGH VS. UNION OF 905 5905/2019 01.11.2016 31.10.2021 INFRUCTUOUS INDIA AND ANR.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 648 - Cited by 0 - Manmohan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next