Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (2.82 seconds)
Documents citing Ms. Nidhi Kaushik vs Union Of India & Ors. on 26 May, 2014

Vakil Kumar Meena vs Director, Export Inspection Council Of ... on 16 April, 2015

In Nidhi Kaushik v. Union of India (supra), the officers of BHEL had misled the Division Bench of this Court and had made false statements on oath whereupon show cause notice was issued to officers who tendered unconditional apology. Reference may be made to the orders dated 30th May, 2014, 11th July, 2014 and 18th July, 2014 passed in LPA 736/2013.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - J R Midha - Full Document

Ms Nidhi Dixit vs North Eastern Railway on 10 July, 2025

4. Learned counsel for the respondents orally opposed the aforesaid prayer; however, submitted that, if so directed, at least two months' time may be given for disposal of the said representation. 5.1 Keeping in view the innocuous prayer made by the applicant, this O.A. is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the applicant dated 20.06.2025 attached as Annexure-11 (page 33 of the OA), and pass a reasoned and speaking order as per law within a period of two months from the date of receipt Page 2 of 3 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00357/2025 Ms. Nidhi Dixit Vs. UOI & Ors. of certified copy of this order, under intimation forthwith to the applicant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sajjad Khan vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 4 December, 2015

11. The learned counsel for the applicants further stated vehemently that fresh grounds beyond what have been stated in the impugned order dated 7.01.2013, cannot be introduced by the respondents and in this regard relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Nidhi Kaushik Vs. Union of India and others, 212 (2014) Delhi Law Times 5 (DB) and specifically to para 7.1 to 7.9 of the judgment.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors vs Anita Jain & Anr on 30 April, 2025

20. The Impugned Order suffers from basic jurisdictional error to have taken cognizance of the Complaint by Order dated 08.01.2015, without relying upon the Domestic Enquiry Report. Also the Judgments in Nidhi Kaushik vs. Union of India, 212 (2014) DLT 5; Ravi Dutta vs. Kiran Dutta &Anr., 2014 (208) DLT 61 and Shambhu Prasad Singh vs. Manjari, 2012 (190) DLT 647, have been ignored by the learned Trial Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Police And Ors vs Manoj Kumar on 16 January, 2026

"(i) Declare in the fact and circumstances that it (Cannot be held against the applicant that in his Application and Attestation Form dated as aforesaid disclosed the facts about his involvement in Criminal Case malafidely. In fact the FIR that was lodged against him on 18.8.2005 which culminated into Criminal case was decided vide judgement dated 4.4.2006 where in applicant was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Also declare that the Judgement in Civil Appeal No. 2537 of 1998 decided on 1.5.1998 reported in (1999) (1 SCC 246) in the case of Dhawal Singh is squarely covered, in addition to the judgement of year 2014 reported in 212 (2014) Delhi Law Times 5 (DB) dated 26.5.2014 in the case of Nidhi Kaushik versus Union of India, decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (DB) wherein the judgement of Dhawal Singh fully relied.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document
1   2 Next