Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 705 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Khem Chand vs The Union Of India And Others on 13 December, 1957

(Pc No. 122/06) (Khem Chand vs . State & Ors.) on 27 January, 2007

15. That being the position of law, this court has not to decide as to whether deceased Smt. Bhagirathi @ Bhagwati Devi had right or (PC No. 122/06) (Khem Chand vs. State & Ors.) : 11 : title over the property, bequeathed by her to petitioner and respondent No. 2. This court is not to decide the rights of parties qua the title of the property. In view of this, objection taken by respondent No. 3 in his objections do not affect the maintainability of the present probate petition. I, therefore, decide this issue against respondent No. 3.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Macki Fernandez vs State Of Kerala And Anr. on 1 February, 1961

According to the learned Counsel, such a power vested in the authorities has been held by the Supreme Court in its recent Judgment to be arbitrary and violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution in my view, a close study of the judgment of the Orissa High Court, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court will ultimately show that their lordships do not intend in any way, to modify the view already expressed in the earlier decisions in Khem Chand v. Union of India 1959--I L.L.J. 169 and Kapur Singh v. Union of India . The decision in the Orissa High Court was mainly in view of the denial of a right which according to the learned Judges, existed under an earlier Service Rule and it is this aspect that has weighed very much with the learned Judges in striking down the proceedings taken against the particular non-gazetted officer in that and this view was accepted by the Supreme Court in appeal. In that case, it will be seen that there was originally one set of rules, namely, the Classification Rules applicable to both gazetted and non-gazetted Government servants. Under the Classification Rules, both sets of Government servants had a right of appeal against the orders imposing punishment or penalty. Later on, another set of rules were framed, namely, the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1951, which were also made applicable to both sets of Government servants. But the later rules gave a right of option to gazetted officers alone to choose as to whether they want to be proceeded with either under the old Classification Rules or the new Disciplinary Rules. No such right of option was given to a non-gazetted officer. Further the Disciplinary Rules barred all rights of appeal. These were the major points of difference in the two sets of rules. Under those circumstances, the Government in that case, referred for inquiry the conduct of non-gazetted office under the 1951 Disciplinary Rules and he was ultimately found guilty.
Kerala High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Shahid Balwa vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 29 May, 2013

34. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the nature of allegations being raised against the appellant the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of K.T.Shaduli (supra), Khem Chand vs. UOI (supra) and Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra(supra) would in LPA No.79/2013 & 80/2013 Page 18 of 20 our view apply to the facts of this case. The respondent has failed to place on record any fact to show that prejudice would be caused to it if the appellant is permitted to cross-examine the said witness. In fact a query was posed to the learned counsel for the respondent about whether any prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the cross-examination is allowed. The learned counsel could not specify any prejudice. In our view the present appeal should be allowed to the extent that the appellants should be entitled to cross-examine the three witnesses whose statements have been relied upon by the respondent in the complaint. The respondent in the complaint have heavily relied upon the statement of Shri Ahmad Sakir, Shri Pratap Ghose and Shri K.Vasudeva. It would be in the fitness of things that to test the veracity of their statements which is relied upon by the respondent the appellants are allowed to cross-examine them.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document

D.V. Raghavacharyulu vs Deputy Commissioner Endowments ... on 28 July, 1983

In the case in Khem Chand v. Union of India the Court observed that the Civil Servant continues to be a member of the service in spite of the order of suspension. That is a case where the validity of R. 12 (4) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1957 was questioned which provides that where a penalty of dismissal or other punishment was set aside by Court, and if the authority decides to hold further enquiry against the officer, the officer shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order. Where the order of dismissal made agaisnt the plaintiff was ultimately set aside by the Supreme Court, the authorities invoked the above rule and decided to make fresh enquiry. The effect of the decision is that he officer must be deemed to have been suspended from the date of the original order. While upholding the validity of the rule as not being contrary to Arts. 142 and 144 of the Constitution, their Lordships observed in that context that the real effect of the order of suspension is that though he continued to be a member of the Government service he was not permitted to work, and further, during the period of his suspension he was paid only some allowance - generally called "Subsistence allowance" - which is normally less than his salary - instead of the pay and allowances he would have been entitled to if he had not been suspended. There is no doubt that the order of suspension affects a Government servant injuriously. It is not possible to equate the position of the hereditary trustee as that of a Civil Servant whose tenure of office depends on the pleasure of the State though subject to certain limitations, and where the jural relationship is that of a master and servant.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Pranshu S Raghuvansh vs Indraprastha Institute Of Information ... on 19 February, 2010

In the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khem Chand vs. Union of India (supra) in the back drop of the facts of the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an opportunity to deny the guilt and establish the innocence by affording an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses ought to have been LPA 580/2009 Page 22 of 37 afforded to the Appellant therein.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next