Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.61 seconds)
M.Ravi Selvam vs The Block Educational Officer on 13 March, 2023 cites

Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 17 August, 2012

“6. It requires to be pointed out here that the aforesaid decision passed by the Two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, relied by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is a consequential order 13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)Nos.6689 of 2020, etc., batch to the earlier order passed by a Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the same case in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2014) 8 SCC 883), in which it has been ruled that there is no principle that any excess payment to employees could not be recovered and the earlier decisions in Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Haryana v. Israil Khan [(2010) 1 SCC 440] and Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand [(2012) 8 SCC 417), supporting that view have been approved. It has also been explained therein that directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, relaxing the application of law, was in view of the peculiar circumstances which do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore, do not make binding precedent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1165 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

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

“6. It requires to be pointed out here that the aforesaid decision passed by the Two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, relied by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is a consequential order 13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)Nos.6689 of 2020, etc., batch to the earlier order passed by a Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the same case in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2014) 8 SCC 883), in which it has been ruled that there is no principle that any excess payment to employees could not be recovered and the earlier decisions in Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Haryana v. Israil Khan [(2010) 1 SCC 440] and Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand [(2012) 8 SCC 417), supporting that view have been approved. It has also been explained therein that directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, relaxing the application of law, was in view of the peculiar circumstances which do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore, do not make binding precedent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Registrar Coop. Societies Haryana & Ors vs Israil Khan & Ors on 8 October, 2009

“6. It requires to be pointed out here that the aforesaid decision passed by the Two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, relied by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is a consequential order 13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)Nos.6689 of 2020, etc., batch to the earlier order passed by a Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the same case in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2014) 8 SCC 883), in which it has been ruled that there is no principle that any excess payment to employees could not be recovered and the earlier decisions in Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Haryana v. Israil Khan [(2010) 1 SCC 440] and Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand [(2012) 8 SCC 417), supporting that view have been approved. It has also been explained therein that directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, relaxing the application of law, was in view of the peculiar circumstances which do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore, do not make binding precedent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 273 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next