Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chandrashwar Prasad Singh on 15 December, 2017

B.D. Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

30. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh : Writ Appeal No.1232 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017 held that since an employee had no option but to give an undertaking so as to avail the benefit of pay fixation, it cannot be said to be a voluntary act. Therefore, such an undertaking cannot be made the basis of sustaining the recovery.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Ganesh Prasad Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

30. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh : Writ Appeal No.1232 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017 held that since an employee had no option but to give an undertaking so as to avail the benefit of pay fixation, it cannot be said to be a voluntary act. Therefore, such an undertaking cannot be made the basis of sustaining the recovery.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar Dey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

30. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh : Writ Appeal No.1232 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017 held that since an employee had no option but to give an undertaking so as to avail the benefit of pay fixation, it cannot be said to be a voluntary act. Therefore, such an undertaking cannot be made the basis of sustaining the recovery.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Vijay Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

30. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh : Writ Appeal No.1232 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017 held that since an employee had no option but to give an undertaking so as to avail the benefit of pay fixation, it cannot be said to be a voluntary act. Therefore, such an undertaking cannot be made the basis of sustaining the recovery.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Dayanand Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

30. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh : Writ Appeal No.1232 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017 held that since an employee had no option but to give an undertaking so as to avail the benefit of pay fixation, it cannot be said to be a voluntary act. Therefore, such an undertaking cannot be made the basis of sustaining the recovery.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Ashok Datt Rai vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

30. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh : Writ Appeal No.1232 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017 held that since an employee had no option but to give an undertaking so as to avail the benefit of pay fixation, it cannot be said to be a voluntary act. Therefore, such an undertaking cannot be made the basis of sustaining the recovery.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Santosh Kawde Vs State Of M.P. And Others vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

30. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh : Writ Appeal No.1232 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017 held that since an employee had no option but to give an undertaking so as to avail the benefit of pay fixation, it cannot be said to be a voluntary act. Therefore, such an undertaking cannot be made the basis of sustaining the recovery.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mukund Lal Tiwari on 6 March, 2024

30. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh : Writ Appeal No.1232 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017 held that since an employee had no option but to give an undertaking so as to avail the benefit of pay fixation, it cannot be said to be a voluntary act. Therefore, such an undertaking cannot be made the basis of sustaining the recovery.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Shiv Kumar Jhariya (Mehra) vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

30. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh : Writ Appeal No.1232 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017 held that since an employee had no option but to give an undertaking so as to avail the benefit of pay fixation, it cannot be said to be a voluntary act. Therefore, such an undertaking cannot be made the basis of sustaining the recovery.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Mukundlal Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

30. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh : Writ Appeal No.1232 of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017 held that since an employee had no option but to give an undertaking so as to avail the benefit of pay fixation, it cannot be said to be a voluntary act. Therefore, such an undertaking cannot be made the basis of sustaining the recovery.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next