Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 887 (3.41 seconds)
Documents citing The Union Of India vs Chhedu Singh Chauhan 40 Wps/8012/2018 ... on 5 December, 2018

Union Bank Of India vs . Bablu Yadav on 5 June, 2023

In view of the unrebutted testimony of PW-1, various documents placed on record and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has proved its case and is entitled to recover Rs.31,268/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Eight only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the CS SCJ 936/21 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. BABLU YADAV Page No. 8 of 9 date of realization, from the defendant.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Atul Bagai vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 15 October, 2025

12.5 The reliance placed by the applicant on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Arun Mishra(supra), is misplaced as, in that case, the officer was admittedly in continuous service and had completed the requisite notice period, whereas in the present case, the applicant was continuously absent. The doctrine of automatic effect upon expiry of the notice period is inapplicable to a case of unauthorized absence where the right to retire had not matured.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shishir Priyadarshi vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 15 October, 2025

12.5 The reliance placed by the applicant on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Arun Mishra(supra), is misplaced as, in that case, the officer was admittedly in continuous service and had completed the requisite notice period, whereas in the present case, the applicant was continuously absent. The doctrine of automatic effect upon expiry of the notice period is inapplicable to a case of unauthorized absence where the right to retire had not matured.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P Sriharitha vs The State Of Ap on 1 March, 2021

When this Court directed the petitioner to file SSC and other certificates to prove the adoption, the petitioner failed to produce any documents obviously for the reasons best known to her while placing reliance on the judgment in Union of India and Others v. C.Aruna Devi's case (1 cited supra), wherein the Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad held to the following effect:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Bimal Kumar Pathak vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 12 June, 2020

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Union of India vs. Shiv Narain, WP(C) 7204/2016 dated 27.03.2019 as also the justification offered by the Respondent no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Respondent is however instructed to forward a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email (Email:
Central Information Commission Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs S.S.Bedi on 29 July, 2020

In Union of India v. P.D. Yadav (supra) it was held by this Court that punishment imposed under Section 71 of 8 | Page the Army Act and order passed under Regulation 16 (a) of the Pension Regulations are entirely different. The submission made that imposition of punishment under Section 71 of the Army Act and passing of an order under Regulation 16 (a) would result in double jeopardy was not accepted by this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - L N Rao - Full Document

Dr.Anil Kumar Gupta vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 January, 2023

In the opinion of W.P.(C.) No.2129/2007 Page 24 of 30 Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:06.01.2023 10:58:32 Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000062 this Court, the facts and proposition of law emanating out of the case of Sh. Ram Kumar (supra) are in no manner applicable to the instant case. The present case is one wherein the Petitioner is demanding a Pay Scale which he was not eligible to be granted in the first place. The Office Memorandum dated 04.05.1999 was never applicable to technical posts in the ICAR. Moreover, the Petitioner never attained T-6 Grade in his technical service and the ICAR is not even a department of the government.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next