Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.31 seconds)Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
"25. We have consciously noted the
aforesaid decisions of this Court. The
principle as has been laid down in State
of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4
SCC 1, has also been applied in relation
to the persons who were working on
daily wages. According to us, the daily
wagers are not appointees in the strict
sense of the term 'appointment'. They do
not hold a post. The scheme of
alternative appointment framed for
regular employees of abolished
organisation cannot, therefore, confer a
similar entitlement on the daily wagers
of abolished organisation to such
alternative employment.
Sri Srinivasa Bhat (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Sri A. Sarvothama Kini (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 27 April, 2010
14. The Apex Court in cases titled as S.D.O. Grid
of
Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and others versus Timudu
Oram, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 3715, and Srinivasa
rt
Bhat (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. versus A. Sarvothama
Kini (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., reported in AIR 2010
Supreme Court 2106, has also discussed the same
principle.
Bhakra Beas Management Board vs Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr on 19 August, 2010
15. It would also be apt to reproduce para 39 of the
of
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Bhakra Beas
Management Board versus Kirshan Kumar Vij & Anr.,
rt
reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3342, herein:
State Of Jammu And Kashmir vs R.K. Zalpuri And Ors on 8 October, 2015
16. The Apex Court in the case titled as State of
Jammu & Kashmir versus R.K. Zalpuri and others,
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:22:21 :::HCHP
12
reported in JT 2015 (9) SC 214, held that a Writ Court
while deciding a writ petition, is required to remain alive to
.
Delhi Administration & Ors vs Kaushilya Thakur & Anr on 9 April, 2012
Ors. versus Kaushilya Thakur and Anr., reported in
AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2515. It is apt to reproduce
relevant portion of para 10 of the judgment herein:
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964
(i) While granting relief to the husband of
respondent No. 1, the learned Single
Judge overlooked the fact that the writ
petition had been filed after almost 4
years of the rejection of an application
for allotment of 1000 sq. yards plot made
by Ranjodh Kumar Thakur. The fact that
the writ petitioner made further
representations could not be made a
ground for ignoring the delay of more
than 3 years, more so because in the
subsequent communication the concerned
authorities had merely indicated that the
decision contained in the first letter
would stand. It is trite to say that in
exercise of the power under Article 226 of
the Constitution, the High Court cannot
entertain belated claims unless the
petitioner offers tangible explanation
State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai (1964) 6
SCR 261. "
Chennai Metropolitan Water ... vs T.T. Murali Babu on 10 February, 2014
others versus T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4
Supreme Court Cases 108, has taken into consideration
all the judgments and the development of law and held that
of
delay cannot be brushed aside without any reason. It is apt
to reproduce paras 13 to 17 of the judgment herein:
State Of Maharashtra vs Digambar on 12 May, 1995
In State of Maharashtra v.
Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683, while
dealing with exercise of power of the
High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the Court observed that:
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
(Nandlal Jaiswal case, (1986) 4 SCC
566 : AIR 1987 SC 251, SCC p. 594,
para 24)
"24. ........If there is inordinate
delay on the part of the petitioner
in filing a petition and such delay
is not satisfactorily explained, the
High Court may decline to
intervene and grant relief in the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction."