Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Narinder Mohan Arya Son Of Late Shri H.K. ... vs United India Insurance Company Limited ... on 29 May, 2012

V K Bharti vs General Manager E C Rly on 10 October, 2018

29. After analyzing all the points raised by the applicant in this OA, we find that orders passed by DA and AA are wholly cryptic, non-speaking and without application of mind and have been passed in most casual and perfunctory manner as it has not been passed in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander Vs. Union of India Page No. 14 and Ors. 1986 SCC (L&S) 383, N.M Arya Vs. United India Insurance Company - 2006 SCC (L&S) 840 and DFO Vs. Madhusudan Rao. 2008 Vol. 1 Supreme Today page 617 wherein it has been held that while deciding the representation or appeal or revision by the Competent Authority, speaking order should be passed. On perusal of appeal filed by the applicant, it is evident that the applicant raised several grounds in support of his case but the DA and the AA without considering each and every ground raised by the applicant, rejected his grounds of defence by a cryptic and non-speaking order.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Om Prakash Iv vs Union Of India on 4 January, 2019

28. After analyzing all the points raised by the applicant in this OA, we find that orders passed by DA and AA are wholly cryptic, non-speaking and without application of mind and have been passed in most casual and perfunctory manner and not passed in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander Vs. Union of India and Ors. 1986 SCC (L&S) 383, N.M Arya Vs. United India Insurance Company - 2006 SCC (L&S) 840 and DFO Vs. 15 Madhusudan Rao. 2008 Vol. 1 Supreme Today page 617 wherein it has been held that while deciding the representation or appeal or revision by the Competent Authority, speaking order should be passed. On perusal of appeal filed by the applicant, it is evident that the applicant raised several grounds in support of his case but the DA and the AA without considering each and every ground raised by the applicant, rejected his grounds of defence by a cryptic and non-speaking order.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Bachani Devi vs D/O Post on 19 July, 2019

14. After analyzing all the points raised by the applicants in their OA, I find that order passed by respondent No. 3 is wholly cryptic, non- speaking and without application of mind and have been passed in most casual and perfunctory manner as it has not been passed in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander Vs. Union of India and Ors. 1986 SCC (L&S) 383, N.M Arya Vs. United India Insurance Company - 2006 SCC (L&S) 840 and DFO Vs. Madhusudan Rao. 2008 Vol. 1 Supreme Today page 617 wherein it has been held that while deciding the representation or appeal or revision by the Competent Authority, speaking order should be passed. It is evident that the applicants raised several grounds and placed documents in support of their case but respondent No. 3 without considering each and every ground raised by the applicants and interpreting the documents and their evidentiary value, submitted by applicants rejected their prayers by a cryptic and non-speaking order.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mitali Biswas vs S E Railway on 18 July, 2019

"3. The Appellate Authority has not followed the Rule22(2) of RS(D&A) Rules, 1968 and the orders of the Appellate Authority is not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Chandra v. Union of India reported in 1986(2) SLR-608, Apparel Export Promotion Council v A.K. Chopra reported in 1999 SCC(L&S)- 405 and Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2006)4 SCC 713. The appellate authority must give reasons even while affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not contain elaborate reasons, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever. The order must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while affirming or reversing or modifying the girder of the Disciplinary Authority. The purpose & disclosure of reasons is thaHh^/people^musj haye confidence in the judicial or quasi- judicial authorities, unless^the' reasons are disclosed^hoW%can a person know whether the authority has applied-fts mindfoffliWff^lso, givingof reasons minimizes chances of arbitrariness. HenceJt is an essentialirequireineht of the'njle^of law that some reasons at least in brief musffbe discIpse^n^uWdalfOj^qaasi judicidprcler, even if it is an order of affirmation. Injhis case§he-AppeP^e^uthorit^tpjecte^he%ppeal of the applicant without assigning ^y reasqi[it~~^~SnBB$ZZrmm~B G 1, Accordihglyh'mpugn^^f^e/of ih^ppeflati^uthoritwis quashed."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramji Singh vs Union Of India on 24 February, 2026

Having heard parties counsel at length, we hereby quash and set-aside the 22.11.2007, Appellate order dated and Revisional order dated 24.7.2008. The matter is remitted back to the Revisional authority for reconsideration of the case of the applicant afresh in accordance with the rules and taking into account the dictum of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1986 SC 1173 U.O.I. and others, 2006 (11) SCC 147 - Ram Chand Chand Vs Director IOC Vs. Santosh Kumar, JT 1994 (1) SC 597- National Fertilizer Vs. P.K. Khanna and 2006 SCC (L&S) 840- N.M. Arya Vs. United Insurance Co.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1