cites: 129072761

Union Of India vs Chaman Rana on 12 March, 2018

Reliance has been placed on the judgment titled Union of India and others vs. Chaman Rana, (2018) 5 SCC 798, to contend that mere filing of repeated representations could not be sufficient explanation for delay in approaching the Court for grant of relief and in service matters, the aggrieved must approach Court at the earliest opportunity or within reasonable time.

Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 8 - Cited by 74 - N Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009

The Apex Court in Union of India and others vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, expounding the legal position where the Court or Tribunal gives a direction to consider a belated representation without examining the merits, held as under:

Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 716 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors on 23 August, 2013

The aspect of delay in raising challenge and its consequential result had also been considered by the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal and another vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein it was held that representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The relevant paras in that regard read as under:

Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 387 - D Misra - Full Document

Bsnl vs Narain Dass Kataria on 25 March, 2010

In BSNL v. Ghanshyam Dass (2)6 (2011) 4 SCC 374 a three- Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana7 (1997) 6 SCC 538 and proceeded to observe that as the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and approached the Tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the order dated 7-7-1992.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Jagdish Lal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 May, 1997

In BSNL v. Ghanshyam Dass (2)6 (2011) 4 SCC 374 a three- Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana7 (1997) 6 SCC 538 and proceeded to observe that as the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and approached the Tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the order dated 7-7-1992.

Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 614 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Seshachalam on 18 September, 2007

In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam8 (2007) 10 SCC 137 , this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus:

Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 233 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 0 - Cited by 122106

Dharam Chand Sharma vs Food Corporation Of India And Others on 15 February, 2017

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred aggrieved against the judgment dated 15.02.2017 titled as Dharam Chand Sharma vs. Food Corporation of India and others, rendered by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition was allowed and as a one-time measure, the writ petitioner was given one month's time to submit his option in terms of the Circular dated 01.05.1995 (Annexure P-10) and in case he so opts in terms of the said circular, then he will have to return the amount already received on account of the promotion along with interest @ 8.5% per annum.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - K Singh - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results