Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 126 (3.47 seconds)
Documents citing U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 November, 2004

Sukanti Kanhar vs Sh. Ranjita Patra on 2 January, 2018

6. Now considering the citations relied upon by the respective parties, taking into consideration as to whether the application taken up under consideration in the impugned order was hit by resjudicata, this Court finds for a consideration of the issue involved therein and for the specific order passed by the lower appellate court confining the consideration to particular documents, this Court observes, applying the principle in the case of U.P. State Rod Transport Corporation v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 446 (supra), the subsequent application was not considered vide impugned order, was hit by principle of resjudicata.
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - B Rath - Full Document

The Divisional Railway Manager N.R. ... vs Sri Vinod Kumar Bajpai And Another on 8 July, 2019

32. Reliance is further placed to the same end upon the decisions of a Division Bench of this Court in Syed Vakil Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and another, 2010 (125) FLR 49; another in U.P.S.E.B. vs. Sri Brahm Singh, 2006 (110) FLR 97, which is again a decision of this Court; the decision of this Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. State of U.P. and another, 2007 (114) FLR 169; and the decision in U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (119) FLR 489.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Disciple ... vs Jagat Guru Shankarcharya Jyotishpeeth ... on 22 September, 2017

287 271 222 191 Trojan and Company Ltd. Vs Rm.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235 684 618 192 U.P. State road Transport Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2005(1) SCC 444 542 502 193 Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Sardara Singh and others, AIR 1981 (Punjab and Haryana) 354 484 461 194 Vanagiri Sri Selliamman Ayyanar Uthirasomasundar-eswarar Temple Vs. Rajanga Asari Air 1965 Mad.
Allahabad High Court Cites 273 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Prasana Kumar Keshan vs Pradip Gogoi on 3 August, 2018

Therefore, notwithstanding that by an amendment, contradictory stand was permitted in the case of Sushil Kumar Jain (supra), but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, on finding that the issue was raised earlier in form of an application for leave under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, the application for amendment is found to be hit by the principle of res-judicata, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Transport Corporation (supra). Accordingly, this Court is inclined to hold that the learned trial court had committed jurisdictional error in allowing the prayer CRP No.332/2016 Page 11 of 12 for amendment, which in the opinion of this Court is barred under the principles of Section 11 CPC. Therefore, the revision stands allowed.
Gauhati High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - K R Surana - Full Document

Abdul Shahid S/O Abdul Khaliq Patel vs Smt. Rameshwaridevi Wd/O Gyarsilal ... on 4 March, 2019

In view of the above, it becomes clear that reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on judgments of this Court in the case of Y.B.Patil .vs. Y.L.Patil - AIR 1977 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation .vs. State of U.P. (supra) contending that the principle of res judicata would apply, is wholly misplaced and it cannot be accepted. There is no question of the principle of res judicata applying in the present case on the basis that the decree limited to area of 700 sq.ft. granted in favour of the petitioner estopped him from seeking eviction of the respondent from the suit land admeasuring 5149 sq.ft. This Court finds that the concept of res judicata would not be applicable at all in the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

A.S.Balaraman Thampi vs S.Michael King ..1St on 21 February, 2005

In the aforesaid decision in U.P.State Transport Corporation v. State of U.P (supra), the facts were that the Supreme Court had recorded a clear finding that a draft scheme for nationalization of a route had not lapsed under Section 100(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . Subsequently, it appears that the Allahabad High Court reopened the issue and held that the draft scheme had lapsed. The Supreme Court, in these circumstances, observed that its earlier decision that the draft scheme had not lapsed was res judicata, and it was not open to the High Court to reopen the issue and record a contrary finding.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M Katju - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next