Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.38 seconds)
Sandeep Gupta vs Central Goods And Service Tax on 15 July, 2021 cites

Ram Ujarey vs Union Of India on 13 November, 1998

4. The main contention of ld. Counsel for the applicants for challenging the impugned order is that the applicants were not given any opportunity of hearing by the respondents before passing the impugned orders and they all have been demoted without even issuing any notice to them. Hence, it has been prayed that the impugned order be quashed. As an interim relief, prayer has been made to stay the operation of impugned orders during pendency of the instant O.As. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Page 3 of 13 O.A. No. 330/00207/2021 O.A.No. 330/00211/2021 O.A. No.330/00212/2021 and O.A. No. 330/00272/2021 Court in Ram Ujarey Vs. Union of India, 1999 (1) Apex Court J 0432 (SC), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ A- No. 7114 of 2013 (Raj Bahadur Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary & Ors) decided on 10.1.2014 and Hon'ble Jammu High Court in Rajeev Sharma Vs. State and Ors, 2008 (1) JKJ 7, decided on 21st November, 2007.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 45 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Munna Lal Yadav vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour And Anr. on 30 January, 2006

9. Learned counsel for the respondents in the short counter reply has referred the relevant DOPT OM, to contend that when a person is promoted, no notice is given to him. Similarly, when a promotion is found to have been made without observance of procedure or due to any other infirmities with reference to standing instructions of DoPT, the same DoPT OM provides for re-visiting such promotions by conducting review DPC of original DPCs, without affording any opportunity of personal hearing or showing cause to the affected person(s). Since executive instructions of Government of India on promotions as well as demotions do not provides for a mechanism of showing cause or affording an opportunity of personal hearing before proceeding to nullify/modify/change any promotion already Page 6 of 13 O.A. No. 330/00207/2021 O.A.No. 330/00211/2021 O.A. No.330/00212/2021 and O.A. No. 330/00272/2021 affected on the recommendations of DPC, therefore, the question of grant of opportunity of hearing to the applicant does not arise in the instant case. Moreso, this submission is duly supported by the judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Courts' order dated 30.1.2006 in Munna Lal Yadav Vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour and another).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 7 - R S Jha - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005

In Pradeep Kumar Arora and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2005 (2) ESC page 809, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after citing its several earlier judgments, has held that "A Court of law should not pass any interim order which amounts to a final relief. Whenever, the interim relief is similar to the main relief, then there is no case for grant of interim relief ".
Allahabad High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors vs Shri Dinabandhu Majumdar & Anr on 21 April, 1995

In Born Standard Company Ltd. and others Vs. Deenbandhu Majumdar and another, AIR 1995, Supreme Court page 1499, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of grant of interim relief, which amounts to final relief. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, it should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the damage cannot be repaired for the reason that if no relief for continuance in service is granted and ultimately the claim of applicant is found to be acceptable, the damage cannot be repaired by granting him all those monetary benefits which he would have received, had he continued in service. If loss can be repaired or the loss can be satisfied by Page 10 of 13 O.A. No. 330/00207/2021 O.A.No. 330/00211/2021 O.A. No.330/00212/2021 and O.A. No. 330/00272/2021 giving back wages etc., no interim relief should be granted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 175 - N Venkatachala - Full Document

Council For Indian School Certificate ... vs Isha Mittal And Anr. on 5 May, 2000

20. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian School Certificate Examination Vs. Isha Mittal and another (2000) 7 SCC page 521 by observing that "Actually the relief which the court could have granted finally, has been granted by means of interim order. Therefore, the matter was remanded to High Court for passing a fresh order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 69 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Rajeev Kumar Sharma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 April, 2018

4. The main contention of ld. Counsel for the applicants for challenging the impugned order is that the applicants were not given any opportunity of hearing by the respondents before passing the impugned orders and they all have been demoted without even issuing any notice to them. Hence, it has been prayed that the impugned order be quashed. As an interim relief, prayer has been made to stay the operation of impugned orders during pendency of the instant O.As. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Page 3 of 13 O.A. No. 330/00207/2021 O.A.No. 330/00211/2021 O.A. No.330/00212/2021 and O.A. No. 330/00272/2021 Court in Ram Ujarey Vs. Union of India, 1999 (1) Apex Court J 0432 (SC), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ A- No. 7114 of 2013 (Raj Bahadur Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary & Ors) decided on 10.1.2014 and Hon'ble Jammu High Court in Rajeev Sharma Vs. State and Ors, 2008 (1) JKJ 7, decided on 21st November, 2007.
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - A K Tripathi - Full Document

Raj Bahadur Singh vs Principal Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 8 October, 2015

4. The main contention of ld. Counsel for the applicants for challenging the impugned order is that the applicants were not given any opportunity of hearing by the respondents before passing the impugned orders and they all have been demoted without even issuing any notice to them. Hence, it has been prayed that the impugned order be quashed. As an interim relief, prayer has been made to stay the operation of impugned orders during pendency of the instant O.As. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Page 3 of 13 O.A. No. 330/00207/2021 O.A.No. 330/00211/2021 O.A. No.330/00212/2021 and O.A. No. 330/00272/2021 Court in Ram Ujarey Vs. Union of India, 1999 (1) Apex Court J 0432 (SC), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ A- No. 7114 of 2013 (Raj Bahadur Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary & Ors) decided on 10.1.2014 and Hon'ble Jammu High Court in Rajeev Sharma Vs. State and Ors, 2008 (1) JKJ 7, decided on 21st November, 2007.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1