Jeet Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others. on 30 July, 2012
Jeet Singh and others versus Union of India and others. -:: Page 6 of 6 ::-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)Documents citing
Jeet Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 10 August, 1994
Sh. Jeet Ram & Ors. vs Union Of India on 7 November, 2007
Vide separate order dictated and announced in the
open court, an application dt. 13.10.1993 U/Sec.151, 152 & 153
CPC filed by the applicants for an order calling the revised
statement u/sec. 19 from the Land Acquisition Collector and for
orders in enhancement & correction in the judgment dt.17.07.1986
is disposed of. This order shall be treated & read as a part of the
judgment dt. 17.07.1986 passed in LAC No.91/81 titled Jeet Ram &
Ors Vs UOI.
Jagdish Chandra Trikha vs Punjab National Bank And Ors. on 24 October, 1997
(13) In so far as C.A.No. 505 of 1962 (Jeet Singh vs. Union of India) is concerned. Mr. Agarwala has brought to our notice that neither in the evidence of the Station Master nor in that of any other witness has it been established that the wagon in which the consignment of the appellant therein was being carried has been shown to have been broken open. That is indeed so. ButMr. Patwardhan, appearing for the respondent says that since the incident itself, that is of the looting of the wagons. had been established and since the evidence clearly shows that the wagons had been broken open the mere non-mention of the number of the Particular wagon in which the appellant's consignment was being carried has not been specifically deposed to by any one would make little difference. He also points out that there is evidence to show that amongst the articles looted.were consignments of turmeric and the consignment of the appellant was of turmeric and, therefore, this is an additional reason for holding that the loss of the appellant's consignment was because it had been looted.In our opinion, there is no substance in his argument.It cannot be assumed that because the other consignments were lost as a result of looting even this one which was not delivered could be said to have been lost through the same circumstance, that is, by reason of its beinglooted. Again, there is nothing to show that the other wagons did not contain turmeric."
Tilak Raj S/O Shri Nandoo Ram vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 19 August, 2011
8. Thus, in view of the finding recorded by the Jodhpur High Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, relevant portion of which has been extracted above, we are of the view that the applicants are also entitled to the benefits in terms of the observations made by the High Court of Jodhpur in the case of Prashudayal through LRs Smt. Bidami & others v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench & others, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.81/1999 and connected matters and in the light of the directions given by this Tribunal in the case of Inder Singh (supra).
Trilok Singh S/O Shri Surender Singh vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 18 August, 2011
8. Thus, in view of the finding recorded by the Jodhpur High Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, relevant portion of which has been extracted above, we are of the view that the applicants are also entitled to the benefits in terms of the observations made by the High Court of Jodhpur in the case of Prashudayal through LRs Smt. Bidami & others v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench & others, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.81/1999 and connected matters and in the light of the directions given by this Tribunal in the case of Inder Singh (supra).
N.C. Chakraborty S/O Late N. ... vs Union Of India-Through General Manager on 15 July, 2016
4. Having gone through the aforesaid order of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, and the admitted facts of the present case, I am of considered view that the present applicants/husbands of the applicants, were similarly placed as that of the applicants before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the matters of Jeet Singh (supra) and therefore they are also entitled for the same relief as has been granted to them by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal.
1