Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)
Raj Kumar vs Union Of India on 30 May, 2011 cites

State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur vs Ajay Kumar Gulati on 16 July, 1996

"7. We are not prepared to agree. The High Court has given reasons for the directions it has given in supersession of the orders of the notified disciplinary authority. We are unable to say that the view taken by the High Court is not a possible view. Acting under Article 136, we do not think it advisable to interfere with the order of the High Court, even if we find that another view of the matter is possible." (emphasis added) This judgement is in the facts and circumstances of the above case and the Honourable Supreme Court has not laid down any law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 21 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors vs Govind Joti Chavare And Ors on 4 March, 1975

In Ramchandra Keshav Adke (supra) the issue under consideration was about certain provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1948. Under the said act a tenant could surrender his tenancy in favour of the landlord, provided that such surrender should be in writing and should be verified by the Mamlatdar. In the case before the Honourable Supreme Court the verification of the surrender of the tenancy was not done by the Mamlatdar. Successive courts held this surrender to be wrong. The view was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the Applicant has pointed to the following observation of the Honourable Supreme Court in the above judgement:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 313 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Lalit Popli vs Union Of India on 7 August, 1998

In Lalit Popli (supra) it was held that the opinion of the Handwriting Expert was not conclusive evidence as he was not a qualified person and court had passed strictures against him. However, this judgement is also in the peculiar facts of the case, where the Handwriting Expert was held to be incompetent. Since this is not the stand of the Applicant in this case that the GEQD was incompetent, this judgement has no application in the instant case.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document

Sh. Prabhu Dayal vs M.C.D. And Anr. on 23 March, 2001

The judgement in Prabhu Dayal (supra) has also no application in the instant case because the findings of the inquiry in this case had been set aside by the court as being based on conjectures and hearsay and as such perverse. Fresh inquiry was ordered on the same charges by the disciplinary authority. The Honourable Delhi High Court held that the respondent Corporation was not entitled to order a fresh inquiry against the petitioner in respect of the same charges which had been validly found by the Labour Court not to have been established or proved before the domestic inquiry. This judgement also would not apply in the facts of the instant case.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 19 - A K Sikri - Full Document

K. R. Deb vs Collector Of Central Excise, Shillong on 7 April, 1971

In support of his arguments, the Applicant has placed reliance on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Ajay Kumar Gulati arising out of C.A. number 9226/1996 decided on 16.07.1996; Ramchandra Keshav Adke and others Vs. Govind Joti Chavare and others , reported in AIR 1975 SC 915; Lalit Popli Vs. Union of India and Others, 75 (1998) DLT 269 (Delhi High Court); Prabhu Dayal and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, CWP number 1131 of 1975 decided by the Delhi High Court on 29.02.1980; and K.R. Deb Vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, AIR 1971 SC 1447.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 243 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Nazir Ahmad vs Emperor (No. 2) on 16 June, 1936

It was applied by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad V. Emperor and later by this Court in several cases, to a Magistrate making a record under ss. 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. This rule squarely applies "where, indeed, the whole aim and object of the legislature would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other." The rule will be effected with full force in the present case because non-verification of the surrender in the requisite manner would frustrate the very purpose of this provision. Intention of the legislature to prohibit the verification of the surrender in a manner other than the one prescribed, is implied in these provisions. Failure to comply with these mandatory provisions, therefore, had vitiated the surrender and rendered it non-est for the purpose of s. 5 (3) (b)."
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 800 - Full Document

Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995

The ratio of the various judgements of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakrishnan, JT 1998 (3) SC 123 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and another, (1991) 16 ATC 514 is that the effect of delay in each case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case and the nature of charge. We are of the considered opinion that in the instant case the Applicant cannot argue that he has been prejudiced by delay in issuing the charge sheet against him because the charge against him is very serious and it is such that it can be proved on the basis of documents and testimony of expert witnesses and others about the authenticity of documents. Except only saying that he has been prejudiced by delay in issuing the charge sheet, no reasons have been given to support this contention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 438 - B P Reddy - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Singh And Another on 5 April, 1990

The ratio of the various judgements of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakrishnan, JT 1998 (3) SC 123 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and another, (1991) 16 ATC 514 is that the effect of delay in each case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case and the nature of charge. We are of the considered opinion that in the instant case the Applicant cannot argue that he has been prejudiced by delay in issuing the charge sheet against him because the charge against him is very serious and it is such that it can be proved on the basis of documents and testimony of expert witnesses and others about the authenticity of documents. Except only saying that he has been prejudiced by delay in issuing the charge sheet, no reasons have been given to support this contention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 761 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1   2 Next