Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.35 seconds)K. Madalaimuthu & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 4 July, 2006
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.Madalaimuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 6 SCC 558 in support of her contention that the Supreme Court interpreted Rule 4(a) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, and made it very clear that temporary appointees would be entitled to seniority only from the date of regularisation. There is no doubt with regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K. Madalaimuthu cited supra.
P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 October, 1974
26. Presently, sitting in a time machine, we may refer to a two-Judge Bench decision in P.S.Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152), wherein it has been laid down that:
Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006
After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. (See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347], U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh [(2006) 11 SCC 464] and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd., v. K.Thangappan [(2006) 4 SCC 332])
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Pan Singh & Ors on 8 March, 2007
In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and Ors. [(2007) 9 SCC 278], this Court held:
Amarjeet Singh & Ors vs Devi Ratan & Ors on 18 November, 2009
31. The Supreme Court in Amarjeet Singh v. Devi Ratan, (2010) 1 SCC 417, held that an employee cannot be given seniority prior to his birth in the cadre.The Supreme Court said :-
Pawan Pratap Singh & Ors vs Reevan Singh & Ors on 10 February, 2011
32. The view expressed in Amarjeet Singh was followed by the Supreme Court later in Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 267.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964
(i) In State of M.P., v. Bhailal Bhai reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner, the discretionary extraordinary remedy of mandamus, ceriorari or other relief.
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
(ii) In State of M.P., v. Nandlal Jaismal reported in 1986 (4) SCC 566, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 24, held as follows:
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors on 12 September, 1996
(iv) In State of Rajasthan v. D.R.Laxmi reported in 1996 (6) SCC 445, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that though the order may be void, if the party does not approach the Court within a reasonable time, which is always a question of fact and have the order invalidated or acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the Court has to be exercised in a reasonable manner.