Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)
Niraj Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 August, 2017 cites

The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Ram Janam Jha & Ors on 25 April, 2014

In the opinion of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, the judgment of the Division Bench in LPA No.206 of 2014 (State vs. Ram Janam Jha) is per incuriam because it has failed to take note of the policy decision of the State Government on the issue of compassionate appointment as well as the land mark decisions on the issue. The vacuous arrogance of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department is eloquent from the statement made in paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit which runs under:
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 35 - S P Singh - Full Document

Ram Janam Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 August, 2013

The writ petitions are allowed and in the nature of resistance put up by the Finance Department despite the resolution of the State Government dated 25.3.2015 and the judgment of this Patna High Court CWJC No.9921 of 2017 dt.21-08-2017 50 Court in the case of Ram Janam Jha (supra), I impose a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lacs) to be deposited by the State through the Chief Secretary in the Patna High Court Legal Aid Committee, Patna within 3 months from today. The State in turn would be at liberty to recover the said amount from all those found responsible for inviting such a cost by engaging its employees in protracted unwarranted litigation.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - N P Singh - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014

"19. That it is relevant to submit here that the Hon‟ble three Judges of Supreme Court was pleased to affirm the law laid down in case of Chandi Prasad Uninyal and others (supra) in case of the State of Punjab & others vs. Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) (supra) holding therein that the principle laid down in case of Chandi Prasad Uninyal is binding precedence under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Article 136 of Constitution of India is a corrective jurisdiction that vests the direction in the Supreme Court to settle the law clearly and makes the law operational to make it binding precedent for future instead of keeping it in vague in short, it declares the law as under Article 141 of the Constitution of India while directions issued under Article 142 for any cause or matter in particular facts and circumstances thereof cannot be considered as law laid down by the Hon‟ble Patna High Court CWJC No.9921 of 2017 dt.21-08-2017 44 Supreme Court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Supreme Court Employees' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 July, 1989

and the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association vs. Union of India since reported in AIR 1990 SC 334 to remind the Principal Secretary, Finance Department that a party to a decision cannot be permitted to reopen a concluded issue on grounds that certain issues which could have been raised by the department, were either not raised or has escaped the notice of the Bench. Law is well settled and any issue finally decided between the parties cannot be permitted to be reopened at Patna High Court CWJC No.9921 of 2017 dt.21-08-2017 43 the instance of either of the parties, inter alia, on grounds of deficient reasoning or any other grounds, on the principle of res- judicata which equally applies to writ proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 588 - M M Dutt - Full Document
1   2 Next