Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Kapoor Singh Harnam Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secy. ... on 20 April, 1959

S.M. Zaki Naqui vs Custodian, Union Bank Of India And Ors. on 6 March, 1974

A reference may be made to the cases of M. Varghese v. Union of India, ; Prafulla Kumar v. Calcutta S T. Corporation, ; Barada Kanta v. State of West Bengal ; Suprasad v. State Bank of India ; Ram Babu v. Divisional Manager, L.I.C. ; Abdul v. Garo Hills District Council A.I.R. 1961 Assam 69 ; Tara Singh v. Union of India ; Kapoor Singh v. Union of India ; Subodh Ranjan v. N. A. O. Callaghan ; Dass Mal v. Union of India A.I.R. 1956 Punj. 42 and Ranjit Ghosh v. amodar Valley Corporation .
Patna High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Inder Sain Bakshi S/O Bakshi Anant Ram vs Union Of India, Through Secy. Ministry ... on 29 August, 1967

The consequence of this is that a member of a defense service or a person who holds any post connected with defense is outside the scope of Article 311 of the Constitution of India though he falls within the scope of Articles 309 and 310. Admittedly, the appellant was nto a member of the defense services. The only other question is whether he held any post connected with defense. On the materials available on record, there is no doubt whatever that the appellant was holding a post in connection with defense. The case of Kapoor Singh Harnam Singh v. Union of India, , related to a case of a Supervisor in the Military Dairy, Jabalpur. The learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in that case, took the view that the appellant in that case was holding a post connected with defense, and therefore, was outside the scope of Article 311 of the Constitution.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jai Nath Wanchoo vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 April, 1969

Only one case was cited before the learned Judge, namely, Kappor Singh Harnam Singh v. Union of India, , in which a learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that though Article 311 did not apply to a civilian employed in the Defence Service, he was governed by Army Instructions (India), 1949, and that a contravention of the said Instructions would furnish a cause of action to such an employee. None of the Supreme Court cases till then decided nor any of the decisions of this High Court above referred to were brought to the notice of the Court and accordingly the learned Judge proceeded to dispose of the petition as if , was correctly decided. It may also be noted that in Misc. Petn. No. 256 of 1964 (Bom.), the order was not passed by the President but by the Commander, Bombay Sub-Area, while in the case before us the impugned order is that of the President himself.
Bombay High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1