Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Thr Secretary, Land ... vs M/S. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. . on 17 March, 2023
(ii) Further, in Beghar Foundation through its Secretary vs.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (3.27 seconds)Documents citing
The State Of Tamilnadu Represented By ... vs K. Ramachandran, Proprietor, Complex ... on 21 September, 2006
Microvision Technologies Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 24 August, 2023
rpcdl-36475-2022.doc
Foundation, thru its Secretary V. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy 11,
wherein it was held that the Review Petition cannot be entertained
on the ground of "change in the law" by the subsequent decision /
judgment of larger Bench.
Microvision Technologies Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 24 August, 2023
rpcdl-36475-2022.doc
Foundation, thru its Secretary V. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy 11,
wherein it was held that the Review Petition cannot be entertained
on the ground of "change in the law" by the subsequent decision /
judgment of larger Bench.
Thalapathi Parthiban vs ) The Superintending Engineer on 10 July, 2013
In State of Tamil Nadu v. P.M.Balliappa reported in 1985 (2) LLN 362
(Mad.), this Court has held that the necessity or desirability to place the
person under suspension is the objective satisfaction of the Government. More
so, the Court cannot look into the sufficiency of material, but only the factum
of satisfaction if the satisfaction is no satisfaction at all or it was formed
on a consideration or there was total lack of application of mind.
R.Ravichandran vs The Additional Commissioner Of Police on 5 October, 2010
In State of Tamil Nadu v. P.M.Balliappa reported in 1985 (2) LLN 362 (Mad.), this Court has held that the necessity or desirability to place the person under suspension is the objective satisfaction of the Government. More so, the Court cannot look into the sufficiency of material, but only the factum of satisfaction if the satisfaction is no satisfaction at all or it was formed on a consideration or there was total lack of application of mind.
S.Upakaram vs The District Collector on 1 November, 2010
In State of Tamil Nadu v. P.M.Balliappa reported in 1985 (2) LLN 362
(Mad.), this Court has held that the necessity or desirability to place the
person under suspension is the objective satisfaction of the Government. More
so, the Court cannot look into the sufficiency of material, but only the factum
of satisfaction if the satisfaction is no satisfaction at all or it was formed
on a consideration or there was total lack of application of mind.
K.S.Abdul Rashid vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 August, 2013
In State of Tamil Nadu v. P.M.Balliappa reported in 1985 (2) LLN 362
(Mad.), this Court has held that the necessity or desirability to place the
person under suspension is the objective satisfaction of the Government. More
so, the Court cannot look into the sufficiency of material, but only the factum
of satisfaction if the satisfaction is no satisfaction at all or it was formed
on a consideration or there was total lack of application of mind.
K.S.Abdul Rashid vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 August, 2013
In State of Tamil Nadu v. P.M.Balliappa reported in 1985 (2) LLN 362
(Mad.), this Court has held that the necessity or desirability to place the
person under suspension is the objective satisfaction of the Government. More
so, the Court cannot look into the sufficiency of material, but only the factum
of satisfaction if the satisfaction is no satisfaction at all or it was formed
on a consideration or there was total lack of application of mind.
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Thr. Its Secretary, ... vs M/S. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. on 17 March, 2023
(ii) Further, in Beghar Foundation through its Secretary vs.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs.E.Chandra on 25 January, 2023
2.When this Writ Appeal was taken up for consideration, the learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants fairly submitted
that the subject matter in issue has already been decided by a Division
Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 01.04.2019 in W.A.No.64 of 2019 in
“State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A.Nagarajan” wherein the very same order
impugned herein has been challenged. The relevant portion of the Judgment
is extracted hereunder for ready reference;