Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 493 (1.87 seconds)
Documents citing Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 27 February, 2003

Was vs Straight on 1 October, 2008

39. Reference automatic consequence is answered accordingly. Award of a retrenchment being foundis passed. Copy illegal, we ofhavethecome awarda termination is held to be illegal. It was held Motors Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar reported as (2002 6 SCC, 41; Indian that a persons is not entitled to get long be way sent to to aappropriate position where award of government forfull back wages publication within has30actually days frombecome the something only because it would be lawful to Railway Construction Co. Vs. Ajay Kumar reported as (2003) 4 SCC, 579; do so. It was also acknowledged rare.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhim Sen Garg vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 13 June, 2006

59. I am also not convinced with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged FIR is outcome of gross mala fide on the part of the concerned Minister. And in view of the settled proposition of law, the allegation of mala fide against the Minister concerned without impleading him as party are not sustained as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Railway Construction (Supra).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - K S Rathore - Full Document

Smt. Jyoti Khare vs State Of U.P.,Thru.Secy.,Housing & ... on 26 May, 2017

In Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 1843 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court can exercise the power of judicial review if there is manifest error in the exercise of power or the exercise of the power is manifestly arbitrary or if a power (whether legislative or administrative) is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are patently erroneous, such exercise of power will stand vitiated.
Allahabad High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Foxteq Services India Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Service Tax on 3 April, 2013

27. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decisions as stated supra only to show that non-consideration or non-application of mind on relevant factors will be regarded as manifest error. As we found that the Tribunal had given a prima facie finding and also granted 50% waiver, the decisions reported in Indian Railway Construction Co., Ltd., Vs. Ajay Kumar (2003) (4) SCC 579; Omar Salay Mohd. Sait V. Commissioner of Income Tax (AIR 1959 (SC) 1238 ) are factually distinguishable.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K R Baabu - Full Document

Vipulbhai M Chaudhary vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 20 April, 2017

20.2 Whereas, in the case of ORYX Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason Page 31 of 34 HC-NIC Page 31 of 68 Created On Sun Aug 13 05:26:38 IST 2017 31 of 68 C/SCA/1577/2017 JUDGMENT in the appellate order, and therefore, quashed the show-cause notice when it was observed that there is evidence regarding bias by the respondent. Though it can be argued in the present case also that respondents are initiating proceedings one after another against the petitioner, and therefore, they are biased and though it may seem to be an attractive submission and argument, the fact remains that there are several prima facie evidence against the petitioner, and therefore, if somebody has indulged repeatedly in irregularities, then, there may be different proceedings against him, and therefore, such different proceedings cannot be considered as pre-meditation. Whether a habitual offender can say that even if he commits an offence repeatedly, he may not be charged and prosecuted in separate case since it would amount to pre-meditation against him? It is well settled that ordinarily no writ lies against show-cause notice.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S G Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next