Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Laxmi Narain Jagdish Saran Kanya Inter ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors. [Alongwith Civil ... on 4 March, 2004

Pyare Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 2 Others on 19 February, 2020

Nothing has been brought to our attention that the said judgment has been overruled. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that the said conclusion cannot be faulted for the reason that mere filing of a F.I.R. cannot result in holding a fair price shop owner guilty of the offences charged. If there be a conviction, then it is possible to proceed, based on the conviction and not otherwise. In case if the F.I.R. is lodged, it is still open to the respondents to proceed by leading independent evidence and statements of the persons recorded."
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S K Rai - Full Document

Anand Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2013

30- Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Mishra (supra) has also taken note of the requirement of Rule 4. If the principle laid down in the said judgment are taken note of, I find no error in the procedure followed in the present case with regard to the inquiry conducted under section 40 read with Rule 4. 31- As far as the second ground with regard to the provisions of section 40(1)(a), (aa) and (b) being not applicable for the purpose of present acquisition is concerned, I find the aforesaid contention to be wholly misconceived.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Dr. K.C. Rakesh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 8 August, 2011

As already stated above, in the instant case the explanation offered was that a civil suit was instituted within a period of 3 years, which is within limitation. As already stated above, once the jurisdiction was conferred upon this Tribunal in respect of MCD matters w.e.f. 1.12.2008, the explanation given by the applicant that he filed a civil suit before the Trial Court within the outer limit of a period of 3 years, according to me, is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay, more particularly when cause of action in respect of payment of provisional pension, commuted value, leave encashment and also provisional gratuity had arisen on and with effect from 1.4.2004 after his retirement, as neither disciplinary proceedings nor criminal proceedings were pending. Simply because belated payment was made in 2006 will not defer the cause of action although the payment of the aforesaid amount in 2006 may be a relevant consideration to grant interest. At this stage, it will be useful to refer to the decision of the High Court in the case of Jagdish Ram v. DTC, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3133/2008 decided on 11.12.2008 where in para-5 the learned single Judge has held as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mangesh Bharat More vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 29 January, 2026

9 In Sanjai Kumar vs. Deputy Director General (NCE), Directorate, U.P., Lucknow and others [(2002) 3 UPLBEC 2748] and Ram Chandra vs. State of U.P. and others [2008(2) ESC 1053] which has been referred in the Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Jagdish Narain vs. Union of India, Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.4059 of 2003 decided on 14.07.2011, wherein it has been held that the appointment on compassionate ground is always permanent in nature. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner came to be appointed on compassionate ground which is in common parlance against the post that was held by his father on 9 934_WP_15518_2025_Jd permanent basis, then he cannot be considered on probation. It is not his regular recruitment and, therefore, the Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005 applicable to the regular recruited employees will not be made applicable. It is not in dispute that after the approval dated 21.06.2022 the petitioner is getting salary by pay scale. Therefore, the question was in respect of period in between 17.01.2018 to 16.01.2021. For that purpose in view of the above said pronouncements and the findings of this Court that the petitioner's appointment was against the permanent post, the petitioner is entitled to get salary in pay scale since the date of his appointment i.e. 17.01.2018. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.06.2022 by respondent No.4 deserves to be set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document

Mahboob Alam vs State Of U.P. Thru D.M. And Others on 26 April, 2013

In Laxmi Narain Modi v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No.309 of 2003, the Supreme Court has given directions for establishing state level committees for identifying the places, establishment and monitoring the slaughter houses. Directions have been issued by the Supreme Court to remove slaughter house from dense urban localities and to provide for disposal of solid and liquid waste and for prevention of water and air pollution. The State Level Committee has decided to demolish the old and unhygienic places, where the animals are being slaughtered illegally and to remove the slaughter houses from dense urban locality to a place outside the municipal area. The Committee has also decided to upgrade and modernise the slaughter houses; to provide for disposal of the pollutant material and to take effective steps to prevent cruelty on animals at the time of slaughtering and to provide for funds for establishment of modern slaughter houses. The Committee has also decided to regulate the meat factories and the animal fairs and to fix the number of animals to be slaughtered by each such factory.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next