Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 300 (1.71 seconds)
Documents citing Indu Shekhar Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 28 April, 2006

Babulley vs State Of U.P. on 9 February, 2021

44. The judgment in Shekhar Vs. State of M.P. (supra) is a case where seizure witnesses had turned hostile. The convicion was still affirmed by the Apex Court as the injury caused to the deceased were consistent with the weapon recovered despite the seizure witnesses having turn hostile. In the instant case also, the injury suffered by the deceased are consistent with the recovered weapon (rambha). The appellant is therefore not entitled to any benefit under the judgment cited.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sc No. 137/2022 Indu Shekhar vs . State & Ors. on 13 January, 2023

11. In light of the facts and circumstances and on the basis of material placed on record, petitioner is entitled to the succession certificate and there exists no impediment in grant of succession certificate to him. Thus, present petition qua the grant of succession certificate in respect of saving account bearing no.159891757172 in the name of late Smt. Meena Shehkar having balance of Rs.14,07,855.59/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-five and Fifty-nine Paisa only) as on 30.11.2022 and two FDs 4 of 5 SC No. 137/2022 Indu Shekhar Vs. State & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hajara O H vs Uoi, Secy, M/O Labour &Amp; Emp, Nd &Amp; ... on 28 November, 2019

34. We are in agreement with the submission of the respondents that this issue has been squarely dealt with in Indu Shekhar Singh's case (supra) where almost identical issues have been dealt with by holding that the State was within its right to impose conditions where the employees had the option to exercise their right of election. The entitlement was not under any rules but under what was called the residuary power."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijayamma C K vs M/O Labour on 28 November, 2019

34. We are in agreement with the submission of the respondents that this issue has been squarely dealt with in Indu Shekhar Singh's case (supra) where almost identical issues have been dealt with by holding that the State was within its right to impose conditions where the employees had the option to exercise their right of election. The entitlement was not under any rules but under what was called the residuary power."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Pradeep Kumar Garg, Assistant ... vs State Of U.P. Through Its Industrial ... on 3 July, 2007

Besides tin from close analysis of decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in huh, Shekar Singh's case, it appears that the decisions cited by deputationists of present case referred hereinbefore in our judgment has been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Indu Shekar Singh's case but the principle of law laid down in aforesaid cases has neither been detracted from nor any deviation appears from the aforesaid principle in given facts and circumstances o! the case, therefore, in our opinion, the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Indu Shekar Singh's case can be of no assistance to the case of petitioners.
Allahabad High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Uoi & Anr. vs Pankaj Agnihotri on 22 July, 2010

17. During the hearing of the petition(s), learned counsel for the petitioner contended: (i) the Full Bench of the Tribunal has committed an illegality by applying the ratio in SI Rooplal‟s case (supra), for therein the Supreme Court was not concerned with the issue involved in the present case i.e. eligibility of the deputationists for promotion but was concerned with the fixation of seniority of the deputationists; (ii) the Full Bench failed to appreciate that the ratio laid down in SI Rooplal‟s case (supra) had been deviated to by the Supreme Court, in the decisions reported as Indu Shekhar Singh v State of UP (2006) 8 SCC 129, Union of India v G.R.K. Sharma (1998) 6 SCC 186 and T.K. Ponnnuswamy v Govt. of Tamil Nadu 1994 Supp (3) SCC 376; and (iii) the Full Bench did not appreciate the dictum of law laid down in the decision reported as R. Prabha Devi v Government of India (1988) 2 SCC 233 that seniority in a particular cadre does not entitle a public servant for promotion to higher post unless he fulfils the eligibility condition prescribed under relevant recruitment rules.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 8 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Sushama N vs The Secretary Ministry Of Labour And ... on 28 November, 2019

34. We are in agreement with the submission of the respondents that this issue has been squarely dealt with in Indu Shekhar Singh's case (supra) where almost identical issues have been dealt with by holding that the State was within its right to impose conditions where the employees had the option to exercise their right of election. The entitlement was not under any rules but under what was called the residuary power."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next