Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.05 seconds)
Poonam Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 March, 2011 cites

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Ram Singh Ex. Constable on 24 July, 1992

29. This case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Daya Shankar (supra), Ram Singh (supra) and M.M. Malhotra (supra). The CRPF is a disciplined force and it requires to maintain strict discipline. Any laxity in this regard would erode the discipline in the service and cause serious effect in the maintenance of law and order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 405 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Tara Chand vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 August, 2002

In this regard, reference can be made to the pronouncement of the Division Bench of this court dated 27th August, 2002 in WP (C) No.5552/2000 entitled Tara Chand vs. UOI & Ors. This judgment was also rendered in the context of the CRPF Act. The court noticed that misconduct not having been defined in the CRPF Act must carry its ordinary meaning. The Division Bench placed reliance on several judicial precedents and legal texts and observed as follows :-
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Daya Shankar vs High Court Of Allahabad And Ors. Through ... on 8 May, 1987

29. This case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Daya Shankar (supra), Ram Singh (supra) and M.M. Malhotra (supra). The CRPF is a disciplined force and it requires to maintain strict discipline. Any laxity in this regard would erode the discipline in the service and cause serious effect in the maintenance of law and order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 24 - K J Shetty - Full Document

M.M. Malhotra vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 October, 2005

29. This case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Daya Shankar (supra), Ram Singh (supra) and M.M. Malhotra (supra). The CRPF is a disciplined force and it requires to maintain strict discipline. Any laxity in this regard would erode the discipline in the service and cause serious effect in the maintenance of law and order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 105 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Mahendra Singh Dhantwal vs Hindustan Motors Ltd. & Ors on 7 May, 1976

In (5) Mahendra Singh Dhantwal v. Hindustan Motors Ltd. reported in (1976) II LLJ 259 (264) SC, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court observed "standing orders of a company only describe certain cases of misconduct and the same cannot be exhaustive of all the species of misconduct which a workman may commit. Even though a given conduct may not come within the WP(C)No.3837/1990 Page 18 of 26 specific terms of misconduct described in the standing order, it may still be a misconduct in the special facts of a case, which it may not be possible to condone and for which the employer may take appropriate action".
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 51 - P K Goswami - Full Document

S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993

30. The petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands. The petitioner connived with Kumari Mamta Sabharwal who impersonated as the petitioner and appeared in Public Service Examination, Uttar Pradesh 1987 on 8th February, 1988 and was caught red handed. The petitioner‟s case is based on falsehood and is liable to be thrown out in terms of the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 853; State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. vs. R. Sasikumar, AIR 2008 SC 2827; and Hamza Haji vs. State of Kerala and Anr., AIR 2006 SC 3028.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1512 - K Singh - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs R. Sasikumar on 9 July, 2008

30. The petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands. The petitioner connived with Kumari Mamta Sabharwal who impersonated as the petitioner and appeared in Public Service Examination, Uttar Pradesh 1987 on 8th February, 1988 and was caught red handed. The petitioner‟s case is based on falsehood and is liable to be thrown out in terms of the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 853; State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. vs. R. Sasikumar, AIR 2008 SC 2827; and Hamza Haji vs. State of Kerala and Anr., AIR 2006 SC 3028.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 93 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next