Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.41 seconds)
Regional Manager & Anr vs Pawan Kumar Dubey on 8 March, 1976 cites

The State Of Bombay vs F.A.Abraham on 12 December, 1961

This Court's judgment in Sughar Singh's case (supra) shows that it was only following the law on Article 311(2) of the Constitution as laid down repeatedly earlier by this Court. It specifically referred to 546 the following cases: Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India(1); State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sukh Rai Bahadur(2); State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das(3); B. C. Lacy v. State of Bihar(4); Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India(5); A. G. Benjamin v. Union of India(6); Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh(7); Union of India v. Gajendra Singh(8); Divisional Personnel Officer v. Raghavendrachar (supra); Union of India v. Jaswan Ram (9); Madhav v. State of Mysore(10); State of Bombay v. Abraham (supra),.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 53 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Divisional Personnel Officer, Souther ... vs S.Raghavendrachar on 16 December, 1965

This Court's judgment in Sughar Singh's case (supra) shows that it was only following the law on Article 311(2) of the Constitution as laid down repeatedly earlier by this Court. It specifically referred to 546 the following cases: Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India(1); State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sukh Rai Bahadur(2); State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das(3); B. C. Lacy v. State of Bihar(4); Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India(5); A. G. Benjamin v. Union of India(6); Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh(7); Union of India v. Gajendra Singh(8); Divisional Personnel Officer v. Raghavendrachar (supra); Union of India v. Jaswan Ram (9); Madhav v. State of Mysore(10); State of Bombay v. Abraham (supra),.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

C.T. Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 7 January, 1972

This Court's judgment in Sughar Singh's case (supra) shows that it was only following the law on Article 311(2) of the Constitution as laid down repeatedly earlier by this Court. It specifically referred to 546 the following cases: Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India(1); State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sukh Rai Bahadur(2); State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das(3); B. C. Lacy v. State of Bihar(4); Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India(5); A. G. Benjamin v. Union of India(6); Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh(7); Union of India v. Gajendra Singh(8); Divisional Personnel Officer v. Raghavendrachar (supra); Union of India v. Jaswan Ram (9); Madhav v. State of Mysore(10); State of Bombay v. Abraham (supra),.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors vs Sughar Singh on 22 November, 1973

Special leave to appeal was sought in the case before us on the ground that Sughar Singh's case (supra) had been misunderstood by the High Court and required some elucidation by this Court. Special leave was granted on condition that, in any event, the costs of the respondent will be borne by the appellants. The question to be determined was assumed to be one of law only. The appeal was, therefore, to be heard on the special leave paper 'Book with such additional documents from the record of the case as the parties may choose to file.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 26 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Shamsher Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 23 August, 1974

We think that the principles involved in applying Article 311(2) having been sufficiently explained in Shamsher Singh's case (supra) it should no longer be possible to urge that Sughar Singh's case (supra) could give rise to some misapprehension of the law. Indeed, we do not think that the principles of law declared and applied so of have really changed. But, the application of the same law to the differing circumstances and facts of various cases which have come up to this Court could create the impression sometimes that there is some conflict between different decisions of this Court. Even where there appears to be some conflict, it would, we think, vanish when the ratio decidendi of each case is correctly understood. It is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 110 - Cited by 317 - A N Ray - Full Document

Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957

This Court's judgment in Sughar Singh's case (supra) shows that it was only following the law on Article 311(2) of the Constitution as laid down repeatedly earlier by this Court. It specifically referred to 546 the following cases: Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India(1); State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sukh Rai Bahadur(2); State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das(3); B. C. Lacy v. State of Bihar(4); Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India(5); A. G. Benjamin v. Union of India(6); Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh(7); Union of India v. Gajendra Singh(8); Divisional Personnel Officer v. Raghavendrachar (supra); Union of India v. Jaswan Ram (9); Madhav v. State of Mysore(10); State of Bombay v. Abraham (supra),.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 809 - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Anr vs Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur on 22 February, 1968

This Court's judgment in Sughar Singh's case (supra) shows that it was only following the law on Article 311(2) of the Constitution as laid down repeatedly earlier by this Court. It specifically referred to 546 the following cases: Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India(1); State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sukh Rai Bahadur(2); State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das(3); B. C. Lacy v. State of Bihar(4); Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India(5); A. G. Benjamin v. Union of India(6); Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh(7); Union of India v. Gajendra Singh(8); Divisional Personnel Officer v. Raghavendrachar (supra); Union of India v. Jaswan Ram (9); Madhav v. State of Mysore(10); State of Bombay v. Abraham (supra),.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 144 - G K Mitter - Full Document

The State Of Orissa And Another vs Ram Narayan Das on 8 September, 1960

This Court's judgment in Sughar Singh's case (supra) shows that it was only following the law on Article 311(2) of the Constitution as laid down repeatedly earlier by this Court. It specifically referred to 546 the following cases: Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India(1); State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sukh Rai Bahadur(2); State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das(3); B. C. Lacy v. State of Bihar(4); Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India(5); A. G. Benjamin v. Union of India(6); Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh(7); Union of India v. Gajendra Singh(8); Divisional Personnel Officer v. Raghavendrachar (supra); Union of India v. Jaswan Ram (9); Madhav v. State of Mysore(10); State of Bombay v. Abraham (supra),.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 211 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next