Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)
Ramakant Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 9 November, 2017 cites

Grindlays Bank Limited vs The Income Tax Officer, 'H' Ward ... on 15 January, 1980

In Ram Krishna Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1888 this Court examined the similar issue while placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in Grindlays Bank Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 656 and held that no person can suffer from the act of the Court and in case an interim order has been passed and petitioner takes advantage thereof and ultimately the petition is found to be without any merit and is dismissed, the interest of justice requires that any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralized.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 159 - R S Pathak - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Others vs Vijay Kumar Jain on 14 March, 2002

This Court may at this stage refer to judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matters relating to compulsory retirement. It had earlier been held that promotion of an employee would mean that the work and conduct of such employee was satisfactory, but the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Guru Dev Singh 1998 (4) SCC 92 and again in State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain 2002 (3) SCC 641 and in State of U.P. Vs. Lalsaram 2001 (3) SCC 389 have held that mere promotion of an employee would not render the whole service tenure of the employee concerned as satisfactory, and adverse entries even before promotion can be taken into consideration for the purpose of compulsory retirement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 121 - V N Khare - Full Document

K. R. Deb vs Collector Of Central Excise, Shillong on 7 April, 1971

The Hon'ble Single Judge came to a conclusion that instead of the judgment in K.R. Deb (supra) buttressing the argument of the petitioner, it ran counter to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the said judgment holds that it was possible for the Disciplinary Authority to ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. This had happened in the case of the petitioner / appellant since the Inquiry Officer had in his earlier enquiry report found the charge no.2 to be partially proved only on the ground that documentary evidence viz Panchnama etc., was not available. Later, the said Panchnama became available, having been sent by the Excise Commissioner, Karnataka. The Inquiry Officer made further enquiry on the basis of the said material and submitted a supplementary enquiry report. In the absence of any Rule prohibiting the Inquiry Officer from further enquiring into the matter, the disciplinary proceedings, could not have been said to be vitiated only for this reason.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 243 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs P.Thayagarajan on 24 November, 1998

In the case of Union of India & others Vs. P. Thayagarajan 1999 (1) SCC 733, the Supreme Court has considered the judgment rendered in the case of K.R. Deb (supra) and has observed that in the case of K.R. Deb, the Supreme Court held that if in a particular case, where there has been no proper enquiry because of some serious defect having crept into the enquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of enquiry or were not examined, the disciplinary authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence, but that provision would not enable the disciplinary authority to set aside the previous enquiries on the ground that the report of the enquiry officer does not appeal to the disciplinary authority. Clearly in the case at hand before us, initially an enquiry report was submitted, in which one of the charges was found proved and with regard to other charge, the Inquiry Officer had expressed his inability to give a finding because of unavailability of copies of Panchnamas made by the Excise Authorities of Karnataka State. Later on, copies of all these Panchnamas because available and therefore the Inquiry Officer proceeded to conduct further enquiry and gave due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant before submitting a supplementary report.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 49 - Full Document

Bileshwar Khan Udyog Khedut Shahakari vs V.Union Of India And Another on 10 February, 1999

This Court has considered the argument of the appellant. No legitimate right can be claimed by any person who is dismissed but allowed to continue in service on the basis of an interim order. The Hon'ble Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 12.2.2007 has observed on the basis of various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court viz, N. Mohonam Vs. State of Kerala & others AIR 1997 SC 1986; Bileshwar Khan Udyog Khedut Shahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs. Union of India & others AIR 1999 SC 1198 and South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others (2003) 8 SCC 648 and has held that the appointments / continuation in service on the basis of interim order does not create any legal right in favour of an employee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - V N Khare - Full Document

Shiv Shankar And Ors. vs Board Of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. And ... on 15 November, 1993

17. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a Court of Law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs by getting interim order and thereafter blame the Court. The fact that the writ is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, shows that a frivolous writ petition had been filed. The maxim "Actus Curiae neminem gravabit", which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no-one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a fact situation the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralised, as institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor from delayed action by the act of the Court. (Vide Shiv Shankar & Ors. Vs. Board of Directors, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., 1995 Suppl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 113 - Full Document

Ram Krishna Verma Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors. Etc. Etc on 31 March, 1992

In Ram Krishna Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1888 this Court examined the similar issue while placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in Grindlays Bank Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 656 and held that no person can suffer from the act of the Court and in case an interim order has been passed and petitioner takes advantage thereof and ultimately the petition is found to be without any merit and is dismissed, the interest of justice requires that any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralized.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 138 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke And Ors. vs Puna Municipal Corporation And Anr. on 24 January, 1995

In Mahadeo Savlaram Sheke & Ors. Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr., (1995) 3 SCC 33, this Court observed that while granting the interim relief, the Court in exercise of its discretionary power should also adopt the procedure of calling upon the plaintiff to file a bond to the satisfaction of the Court that in the event of his failing in the suit to obtain the relief asked for in the plaint, he would adequately compensate the defendant for the loss ensued due to the order of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff. Even otherwise the Court while exercising its equity jurisdiction in granting injunction is also competent to grant adequate compensation to mitigate the damages caused to the defendant by grant of injunction. The pecuniary award of damages is consequential to the adjudication of the dispute and the result therein is incidental to the determination of the case by the Court. The Court can do so in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in doing ex debito justitiae mitigating the damage suffered by the defendant by the act of the Court in granting injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with the action complained of in the suit. Such a procedure is necessary as a check on abuse of the process of the Court and adequately compensate the damages or injury suffered by the defendant by act of the Court at the behest of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 163 - Full Document
1   2 Next