State vs . Shiv Singh Chauhan And Anr. on 8 April, 2015
( RAJIV MEHRA )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central) Delhi.
State Vs. Shiv Singh Chauhan and Anr.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 886 (1.56 seconds)State vs Amit @ Bhandari on 24 March, 2026
(VI) PW-5 during his cross-examination answered that
he made a call from his office to the police and
thereafter, police officials visited his office and
inquired from him and they recorded the details on a
piece of paper (parchi). However, neither any such
piece of paper bearing the details of the information
provided by the complainant to the police was filed nor
any of these police officials were examined by the IO.
It is also not explained by the prosecution that what
were the compelling reasons under which the legal
proceedings were not initiated by these police officials
after they inquired from the complainant.
(VII) Perusal of the pointing out memo of the spot
Ex.PW-3/A as allegedly prepared at the instance of
Case No. 585/2023 eFIR No. 21053/2020 Page 13 of 28
State v. Amit @ Bhandari
accused shows that it does not bear any name or
signature of independent public witness. The reason
for not joining the investigation to any public person at
that time has also not been explained. It creates
suspicion or veracity of the pointing out memo.
Tseten Palzor Bhutia vs State Of Sikkim And Ors on 27 June, 2022
Similar views to the extent that grievance ought to be brought for
redressal to Court at the earliest were reiterated in Sudhama Devi v.
Commissioner [(1983) 2 SCC 1], State of U.P v. Raj Bahadur Singh
[(1998) 8 SCC 685] and Northern India Glass Industries v. Jaswant
Singh [(2003) 1 SCC 335], M.P. Palanisamy and Others (supra), State of
Uttaranchal and Another vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others
(supra), State of Tamil Nadu vs. Seshachalam (supra) and Vijay Kumar
Kaul and Others (supra).
Dr Satish vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 September, 2024
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased tostay effect and operation of impugned orders dated 07.06.2024 and 06.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court, P.C. Act, Court No.04, Gorakhpur in Special Trial No. 2143/2017 (State Vs. Manish Bhandari and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 428/2017, under Sections 308, 406, 409, 466, 468, 469, 471, 120B I.P.C. and Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Gulriha, District Gorakhpur and stay the further proceedings of Special Trial No. 2143/2017 (State Vs. Manish Bhandari and Others) pending before the Court ofthe learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court, P.C. Act, Court No.04, Gorakhpur during the pendency of the application. And or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer from irreparable loss and injury."
Bhagwan Singhkanyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2025
10. The Supreme Court in the case of State of
Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari
reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179 has held as
under :
Coram vs Union Of India on 7 August, 2014
22. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The applicant filed the Original Application after 12 years of the promotion of private respondent no.3, and 9 years after his promotion to the post of S.W. He has averred in the Original Application that the Chandigarh Bench in R.K.Guptas case (supra) had declared that Degree in Civil Engineering could be regarded as equivalent to pass in Final Examination of the Institution of Surveyors (India) and directed the official respondents to accord promotion to the applicant in that case; that the SLP filed against the said decision was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court; and that the official respondents implemented the Chandigarh Benchs decision dated 15.11.1996. It has also been averred by the applicant that the Chandigarh Bench in the case of Sunil V.Manes case (supra), decided on 2.8.2000 had also taken the same view and the writ petition filed against the said decision was dismissed by the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. It has also been averred by the applicant that the Full Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos. 1290 and 1476 of 2001 and 1275 of 2002, decided on 3.3.2003, had also taken similar view and the writ petitions filed against the Full Benchs decision were disposed of by the Honble High Court of Delhi directing the respondents to provisionally promote the applicants therein to the post of S.W. It is thus clear that the applicant did not agitate
his grievance for long time. The applicant, as noticed herein, did not claim
parity with the applicants in those cases at the earliest possible opportunity. He did not even make any representation to the departmental authorities to extend the similar benefits in 2001 when the private respondent no.3 was promoted or in 2004 when he was promoted to the post of S.W. After such long time, therefore, the Original Application cannot be entertained by the Tribunal even if he is similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the Court/Tribunal after long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In this connection reference is made to the following decisions.
Shri Prem Parkash vs Union Of India And Others Through on 16 April, 2015
In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty to act in accordance with the statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent/non-applicant is not at all relevant.
8.4 In State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others (supra), the respondents were appointed to Group III posts in Subordinate Agricultural Services (SAS) in the Department of Agriculture in the undivided State of Uttar Pradesh. Some of them were appointed in 1974 and some in the year 1975. A provisional seniority list in the cadre of SAS Group III was prepared where they were shown senior to one Madhav Singh Tadagi. The said Madhav Singh Tadagi, who was working as Agriculture Plant Protection Supervisor, Group III, was given ad hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Development Officer (Plant Protection, Group II) by the Deputy Director of Agriculture on 15.11.1983. In the year 1983 a Selection Committee was constituted for making promotion to Group II posts on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness from amongst the employees of Group III posts and in the said selection process the respondents as well as Madhav Singh Tadagi were promoted on regular basis in Group II posts. After regular promotion was made, a seniority list was finalized in respect of promotional cadre and the respondents were shown senior to Madhav Singh Tadagi. The final seniority list was issued on 12.2.1994. On 9.11.2000, under U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 the State of Uttaranchal (presently State of Uttarakhand) was created. The respondents as well as Madhav Singh Tadagi were allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. On 14.10.2003, the respondents filed a claim petition No. 154 of 2003 before the Public Services Tribunal of Uttarakhand at Dehradun (for short the tribunal) claiming that they were entitled to promotion from SAS Group III to SAS Group II with effect from 15.11.1983, the date on which the junior was promoted and, accordingly, to get their pay fixed along with other consequential benefits, namely, arrears of salary and interest thereof. The respondents had submitted number of representations during the period from July, 2002 to June, 2003, but the said representations were not dealt with. The claims put forth by the respondents were resisted by the State and its functionaries contending, inter alia, that promotion to Madhav Singh Tadagi was given by an officer who was not competent to promote any incumbent from SAS Group III to SAS Group II post; that the promotion was made without prejudice to the seniority of other employees; and that the grievance put forth was hit by limitation. The tribunal, after hearing the rival submissions urged before it, came to hold that as a junior person was extended the benefits of promotion in the year 1983, the seniors could not be deprived of the said promotional benefits and, hence, they are entitled to get promotion from the said date. Being of this view, the tribunal directed that the respondents shall be given benefits of promotion with effect from November, 1983 and as they had already been promoted in the year 1989, they would be entitled to notional promotional benefits from 15.11.1983. Assailing the order of the tribunal the State of Uttarakhand and its functionaries preferred Writ Petition No. 133 of 2006 before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court opined that Madhav Singh Tadagi was promoted on ad hoc basis, continued in the said post and was allowed increments and the promotional pay-scale till his regular promotion, and the claimants, though seniors, were promoted on a later date on regular basis and, therefore, the directions issued by the tribunal could not be found fault with. After disposal of the writ petition, an application for review was filed with did not find favour with the Honble High Court and accordingly it dismissed the same by order dated 2.3.2012. Hence, appeals by special leave were preferred challenging the said orders. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders passed by the tribunal and the Honble High Court, the Honble Supreme Court observed and held thus:
P.J.Cyriac vs Stateof Kerala on 10 August, 2017
The filing of repeated
representations cannot stretch the original cause of action as held
by the honourable Apex Court as per the decision reported in State
of Tamil Nadu v. Seshachalam [(2007) 10 SCC 137] and State
of Uttaranchal and Another v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari
and Others [(2013) 12 SCC 179]. In the said circumstance,
despite the best efforts taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, we find it difficult to entertain the matter, as there is no
merit as well.
Vinod Kumar Singh vs Deptt Of Posts on 17 October, 2025
25. The respondents have also rightly emphasized the public
interest in enforcing limitation. The policy underlying Section 21
is to avoid stale litigation and to protect the administration from
indefinite and belated claims which have potential to disturb
settled promotions, pensions and the public exchequer. The
Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Shiv Charan
Singh Bhandari has observed that a claimant who has slept
over his rights may not be permitted to set them in motion at his
convenience where the claim is stale and where the consequences
of entertaining the claim would unsettle settled positions and
impose hardship on public administration. The balance of
convenience and overall public interest therefore weigh against
condoning the present inordinate delay.
C Parameswaran Nair vs Secretary Ministry Of Finance New Delhi on 4 February, 2022
11. Document No.1 : True copy of the judgment in State of Uttaranchal
and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others.