Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 643 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Pritpal Singh, Ram Babu Choudhary, ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 August, 2002

Mrs. Satya Chowdhry W/O Late Ch. Brahm ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 23 October, 2008

Onus on parties 2 Whether the petitioner has any right, title or interest in the land in question? OPP 3 What was the market value of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification U/sec. 4 of the LA Act? Onus on parties 4 Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP 5 Relief 7 Despite opportunities given, petitioner nos.2 & 3 have not filed any documentary evidence. However, Sh.Ajay Chaudhary/petitioner no.4 has examined himself as PW1 and adopted the same evidence as led in the similar leading reference in LAC No.131/1/07 titled as Satya Chaudhary & Ors. Vs UOI. After the said evidence, counsel for the petitioner nos.1 & 4 has closed the evidence. Whereas, the counsel for the respondents have tendered in evidence the copy of the award no.887 of village Shakurpur, Delhi as Ex.R-1.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Satya Chowdhry W/O Late Ch. Brahm ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 23 October, 2008

which has also been tendered in evidence as Ex.PW1/4 in LAC No.131/01/07 entitled Satya Chowdhary and Ors Vs UOI & Anr., the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has fixed the market value of the land at Rs.7,500/- per bigha in addition to statutory benefits in view of the reasons recorded in Ram Mehar Vs UOI RFA No.409/71 decided on 15.10.1979. In view of my findings on the above issue no.1, I hold that the petitioners are not entitled to enhancement in compensation of the land in question in the present reference. These issues are also answered accordingly.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Satya Chowdhry W/O Late Ch. Brahm ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 23 October, 2008

which has also been tendered in evidence as Ex.PW1/4 in LAC No.131/01/07 entitled Satya Chowdhary and Ors Vs UOI & Anr., the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has fixed the market value of the land at Rs.7,500/- per bigha in addition to statutory benefits in view of the reasons recorded in Ram Mehar Vs UOI RFA No.409/71 decided on 15.10.1979. In view of my findings on issue nos.1 & 2, I hold that the petitioners herein have not proved on record their right, title or interest in the land in question, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to enhancement in compensation of the land in question in the present reference. These issues are answered accordingly.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Satya Chowdhry W/O Late Ch. Brahm ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 23 October, 2008

which has also been tendered in evidence as Ex.PW1/4 in LAC No.131/01/07 entitled Satya Chowdhary and Ors Vs UOI & Anr wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has fixed the market value of the land at Rs.7,500/- per bigha in addition to statutory benefits in view of the reasons recorded in Ram Mehar Vs UOI RFA No.409/71 decided on 15.10.1979. However, the petitioners herein have not proved on record their right, title or interest in the land in question and even otherwise, the reference petition has been filed much beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the provisions of the LA Act, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to enhancement in compensation of the land in question in the present reference. These issues are answered accordingly.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Unknown vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary To ... on 17 August, 2012

The Appellate Authority considered the facts given in appeal and all other relevant material and rejected the appeal by a reasoned and speaking order dated 26th October, 2009 (Annexure A/1). Thus, we do not find any infirmity either in the order of the Disciplinary Authority or in the order of the Appellate Authority. Proper procedure has been followed by the respondents while taking action against the applicant according to the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001. Rule 7, which deals with Leave as has been quoted in para 11 (above) provides that where a Sevak fails to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of leave admissible and granted to him, he shall, unless the Government, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, otherwise decides, be removed from service after following the procedure laid down in Rule 10. In this case, the respondents have proceeded against the applicant according to this Rule and have taken action against the applicant following the procedure laid down in Rule 10. The applicant was sanctioned leave for 180 days by the respondents and on expiry of his leave, the applicant neither submitted any medical certificate of his illness nor submitted a certificate of fitness. When the applicant submitted his fitness certificate vide his application dated 04.04.2007 (Annexure R/17), he was allowed to join on 12.04.2007. Action was taken against the applicant for unauthorized absence from duty during the period 22.04.2006 to 11.04.2007, which is according to the Rules on the subject.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next