citedby: 762069

Sri Shivakumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

14. To reiterate, Merely because Ambaji passed away about ten years prior to the order of regularization that would not take away the fact that Ambaji was, in law, a regular employee of the Government when he passed away on14.06.2006. Since the authorities 16 Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Mallikarjun S/O Late Jaganath vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

14. To reiterate, Merely because Ambaji passed away about ten years prior to the order of regularization that would not take away the fact that Ambaji was, in law, a regular employee of the Government when he passed away on14.06.2006. Since the authorities 16 Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Umabai W/O Ambaji vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

14. To reiterate, Merely because Ambaji passed away about ten years prior to the order of regularization that would not take away the fact that Ambaji was, in law, a regular employee of the Government when he passed away on14.06.2006. Since the authorities 16 Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Vishal S/O Dileep Shinde vs State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

14. To reiterate, Merely because Ambaji passed away about ten years prior to the order of regularization that would not take away the fact that Ambaji was, in law, a regular employee of the Government when he passed away on14.06.2006. Since the authorities 16 Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Azuroddin S/O Late Faimoddin vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

14. To reiterate, Merely because Ambaji passed away about ten years prior to the order of regularization that would not take away the fact that Ambaji was, in law, a regular employee of the Government when he passed away on14.06.2006. Since the authorities 16 Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Mareppa S/O Late Shivayogi vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

14. To reiterate, Merely because Ambaji passed away about ten years prior to the order of regularization that would not take away the fact that Ambaji was, in law, a regular employee of the Government when he passed away on14.06.2006. Since the authorities 16 Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Sri Babu vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

14. To reiterate, Merely because Ambaji passed away about ten years prior to the order of regularization that would not take away the fact that Ambaji was, in law, a regular employee of the Government when he passed away on14.06.2006. Since the authorities 16 Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Mallayya vs State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025

14. To reiterate, Merely because Ambaji passed away about ten years prior to the order of regularization that would not take away the fact that Ambaji was, in law, a regular employee of the Government when he passed away on14.06.2006. Since the authorities 16 Sagar v. State of Karnataka and others (WP No. 200122/2021)

Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Thimappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2025

WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF 2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF 2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF 2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF 2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007 modifications were made. The BDA Act does not mandate personal or oral hearings beyond the consideration of written objections, and this view is reaffirmed by a judgment of this Court in the case of D. Hemachandra Sagar v. State of Karnataka, (1998 SCC OnLine Kar

Karnataka High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Sri T N Ramaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2025

WA NO. 1026 OF 2006 C/W WA NO. 1093 OF 2006, WA NO. 1116 OF 2006, WA NO. 1164 OF 2006, WA NO. 1167 OF 2006, WA NO. 1312 OF 2006, WA NO. 1430 OF 2006, WA NO. 1844 OF 2006 & WA NO. 960 OF 2007 modifications were made. The BDA Act does not mandate personal or oral hearings beyond the consideration of written objections, and this view is reaffirmed by a judgment of this Court in the case of D. Hemachandra Sagar v. State of Karnataka, (1998 SCC OnLine Kar

Karnataka High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results