Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)Dibakar Paul vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 April, 2013
As such the judgments delivered in Dibakar Pal's case (supra) and
Sristidhar Biswas's case (supra) have a binding effect.
Sristidhar Biswas And Anr. vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 17 January, 2001
The learned Counsel of the respondent Council has also specifically submitted that though the
appointments have been made in favour of the petitioners of the earlier writ petitions being C.R. No.2522(W)
of 1982 (Sirajul Haque Mallick & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), C.O. No.11154 (W) of 1989 (Dibakar
Pal & Ors vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and C.R. No.11838 (W) of 1989 (Sristidhar Biswas & Anr. vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.) but similar relief cannot be granted to the petitioners herein particularly to the
82 writ petitioners whose numbers having been specifically mentioned in paragraph 3 (Clause XVIII) of the
affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Council on the ground that the said 82 petitioners cannot be
allowed to take benefits of illegal order. In this connection the principle of estoppel springs into action.
Sirajul Haque Mullick & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 30 July, 2010
The learned Counsel of the respondent Council has also specifically submitted that though the
appointments have been made in favour of the petitioners of the earlier writ petitions being C.R. No.2522(W)
of 1982 (Sirajul Haque Mallick & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), C.O. No.11154 (W) of 1989 (Dibakar
Pal & Ors vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and C.R. No.11838 (W) of 1989 (Sristidhar Biswas & Anr. vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.) but similar relief cannot be granted to the petitioners herein particularly to the
82 writ petitioners whose numbers having been specifically mentioned in paragraph 3 (Clause XVIII) of the
affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Council on the ground that the said 82 petitioners cannot be
allowed to take benefits of illegal order. In this connection the principle of estoppel springs into action.
M/S. Mittal Engineering Works(P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise,Meerut on 19 November, 1996
This Court in the case if Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut,
reported in (1997) 1 SCC 203 has observed as follows:
Md. Aziz Alam And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 July, 2000
Learned Counsel of the respondents, however, referred to the decisions reported
in JT 1999 (10) SC 128 Paras 6, 8 & 9 (Delhi Administration & Ors. vs. Hiralal & Ors.), (2000) 2 WBLR 494
(SC) Para 2 (Md. Aziz Alam & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) and AIR 1999 SC 517 Paragraph 6 (Union of
India & Ors. vs. Kishorilal Bagnani) and submitted that the present writ petition suffers from inordinate and
unexplained delay of 20 years and liable to be dismissed. It cannot be the rule of law that whenever there is
delay the court must refuse to entertain a petition. In a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court
reported in AIR 1974 SC 259 it has been specifically held that there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is
delay the court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. Speaking for the Bench Bhagwati, J. observed
in Paragraph 9 of the said judgement as hereunder :
Nadia District Primary School Council ... vs Sristidhar Biswas And Ors. on 11 June, 2004
The case of the Council was that the writ petitioners were not appointed, after they had participated in the
selection process commenced in the year 1993, because they had failed to obtain the minimum marks fixed for
appointment. (See paragraph 3 clause (ii) page 50). It was further contended that it was not possible to appoint any
teacher in disregard of the Recruitment Rules framed after the new Act of 1973 had come into existence. It was also
contended that the judgment in the case of Sirajul Haque Mallick and Dibakar Pal had no manner of application to the
facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment in the case of Sirajul Haque Mallick was passed by consent. It was
specifically recorded in the judgment of the Division Bench that the same would not be treated as a precedent. In spite
thereof, an order in the case of Dibakar Pal was passed. Subsequently the judgment of Sirajul Haque Mallick was also
followed in the case of Sristidhar Biswas, which was challenged before the Supreme Court and the same was set aside.
To be precise, the relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nadia District Primary School
Council vs. Sristidhar Biswas & Ors. reads as follows :
V.S.Charati vs Hussein Nhanu Jamadar(Dead) By L.Rs on 18 November, 1998
Supreme Court in a decision reported in (1999) 1 SCC 273 (V.S. Charati vs. Hussein Nhanu
Jamadar) held that a decision rendered by a Tribunal/Court in absence of challenge becomes final and
binding on both the parties and merely because it may be wrong, it would not become a nullity. In the present
case, it is clear that decisions in the previous writ petitions have become final and binding. Furthermore, in
(1999) 9 SCC at Page 479 Supreme Court has specifically held that judgment of a Single Judge is binding on
other Single Judge of the High Court.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company ... vs District Board Bhojpur And Ors on 12 March, 1992
In a subsequent decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 802 (Dehri Rohtas
Light Railway Company vs. District Board, Bhojpur & Ors.) Supreme Court
took the similar view. Relevant portion of the said judgement (Paragraph 13)
is quoted hereinbelow:
1