Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing L.M.L. Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 13 December, 2007

Shri R.P. Dorasthawar vs The Director on 1 July, 2009

5 On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 submitted that the Standard Code was clearly applicable and since there was no post available with respondent no.1, he had to be issued letter of retirement. He submitted that the Tribunal after going through the record had held that there was general practice ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:43:49 ::: 8 which has not been followed by the petitioner herein. He relied on the judgment in the case of M.L. Binjokar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2005 5 SC 290.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - V M Kanade - Full Document

Vale Australia Pty Limited vs Steel Authority Of India Limited & Anr. on 30 March, 2012

In this regard, reliance is placed on the decisions in Central London Property v. High Trees (1947) I KB 130; Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 621; Amalgamated Investment v. Texas Commerce (1982) 1 QB 84; Spiro v. Lintern (1973) 1 WLR 1002; Taylors Fashions v. Liverpool Victoria (1982) 1 QB 133; L.M.L. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2008) 3 SCC 128; Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf (2006) 7 SCC 756; Dhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore AIR 1952 SC 145 and Azizullah Khan v. Gulam Hussein AIR 1924 Sind 97.
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 7 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Md. Amir Hossain vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 March, 2009

In M.L. Benjolkar vs. State of M.P. (supra), cited by Mr. Bera, the Supreme Court held that full back wages was no longer a natural corollary to an order of reinstatement. Rather, grant and quantum of back wages would depend on several factors and the Court would have to weigh the pros and cons of each case and take a pragmatic view. The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the High Court reducing the back wages awarded to 50%.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

M.P. Singh & Ors. vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. on 29 August, 2011

6. Relying on the observations of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649, it is contended that even if VSNL is no longer State under Article 12 of the Constitution, a writ petition under Article 226 would nevertheless be maintainable against it. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Binny Ltd. v. Sadasivan (2005) 6 SCC 657; State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karamchari Sanstha (2009) 5 SCC 694; L.M.L. Ltd. v. State of UP (2008) 3 SCC 128; BSNL v. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd. (2008) 13 SCC 597; Anadi Mukta Sadguru S. M. V. S. J. M. S. Trust v. V. R. Rudani (1989) 2 SCC 691 and Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas (2003) 10 SCC 733. In addition, counsel has relied upon the licences issued for the conduct of telecom activities under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Rules made thereunder to submit that they underscore the nature of functions performed by VSNL (now TCL) which has to provide mobile connectivity to a large section of the Indian population. It is submitted that by its very nature, the function should be treated as a public function as it was an essential service.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

M (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 August, 2023

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his mother under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act-2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015) to allow the present revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2022 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Court No.1, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2022 (M vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as judgement and order dated 23.09.2022 passed by Principal Judge/Juvenile Justice Board, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Case Crime No.150/2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Turk Patti, District Kushinagar and also prays to release the revisionist/delinquent on bail in the aforesaid case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document
1