State Of Mysore vs M. N. Krishna Murthy & Ors on 5 October, 1972
In State of Mysore v. Krishna Murthy & Ors., AIR 1973 SC
1146; Raj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 1116;
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.40 seconds)Raj Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 March, 1975
In State of Mysore v. Krishna Murthy & Ors., AIR 1973 SC
1146; Raj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 1116;
Ex. Capt. K.C. Arora And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 April, 1984
and Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.,
(1984) 3 SCC 281, this Court observed that it was well-established
that Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
1
of India, being legislative in nature and character, could be given
effect to retrospectively.
K. Nagaraj & Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 18 January, 1985
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Hirendra Pal Singh Etc on 3 December, 2010
(See also : State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shiv Ram Sharma &
Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2012; and State of U.P. & Ors. v. Hirendra Pal
Singh etc. JT (2010) 13 SC 610).
State Of Karnataka And Anr vs Mangalore University Non-Teaching ... on 28 February, 2002
17. Similarly, in State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Mangalore
University Non-Teaching Employees Association & Ors., AIR
2002 SC 1223, this Court held that conditions of service can be
altered unilaterally by the employer but it should be in conformity
with legal and constitutional provisions.
Howrah Municipal Corpn. & Others vs Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. & Others on 19 December, 2003
Indian Charge Chrome & Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 314; and Howrah
Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Ganges Rope Company Ltd. &
1
Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 663, has clearly held that the law which is to be
applied in a case is the law prevailing on the date of decision making.
Greater Mohali Area Dev. Authority & Ors vs Manju Jain & Ors on 19 August, 2010
22. Similarly, we find no force in the submission made by the
delinquent that he did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings
and did not make any comment on receiving the inquiry report along
with the second show cause notice as the notices had not been served
1
upon him in accordance with law. The second show cause notice and
the copy of the inquiry report had been sent to him under registered
post. Therefore, there is a presumption in law, particularly, under
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114
Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act, 1872 that the addressee has
received the materials sent by post. (vide: Greater Mohali Area
Development Authority & Ors. v. Manju Jain & Ors., AIR 2010
SC 3817).
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Sinha on 2 February, 2010
In the instant case, proceedings were held ex-parte against the
delinquent as he failed to appear in spite of notice and such a course
of the inquiry officer was justified (See: State of U.P. v. Saroj
Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131). There is no averment by the
delinquent that he did not receive the said notice and the copy of the
inquiry report. The plea taken by the delinquent shows that he has
adopted a belligerent attitude and kept the litigation alive for more
than two decades merely on technical grounds. The delinquent waited
till the conclusion of the purported fresh enquiry initiated on
17.1.2002, even though he could have challenged the same having
been initiated by a person not competent to initiate the proceedings
and being in contravention of the orders passed by the High Court
1
earlier. In such a fact-situation, the High Court ought to have refused
to entertain his writ petition. More so, the writ petition could not have
been proceeded with and heard on merit when the statutory appeal
was pending before the Board of Directors, CIL.
Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors vs Mumbai Port Trust & Anr on 15 November, 2010
(See: Transport and
Dock Workers Union & Ors. v. Mumbai Port Trust & Anr.,
(2011) 2 SCC 575).