Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Smt. Damyanti Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 May, 2026 cites

Mohammed Aijaz vs Principal Secretary State Of M.P. And 5 ... on 21 January, 2016

Referring to the decision in case of State of U.P. Through : Secretary & Ors Vs. Prem Chopra, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 378. He further submitted that technical objections like limitations or procedural expiry will not defeat the substantive rights where the delay is occasioned due to legal proceedings. Action on the part of the respondents in not passing order based on the recommendation made by the DPC dated 01.01.2022 is highly arbitrary and is in violation of the administrative instructions issued by the State Government dated 16.02.2025. The delay in not passing order on recommendation made by DPC on 01.01.2022 till 31.01.2022 can be only said to be an administrative delay as the respondents 9 have not proceeded further by virtue of interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Reliance placed by the respondents under Rule 18 (5) of the Rules, 2019 is misplaced in the facts of the case. Counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioners in WPS No.5817 of 2024 are also Headmaster Primary School and have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Director Public Instructions pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court in WPS No.8944 of 2023 and rejected their claim arbitrarily mentioning that by virtue of Rule 18 (5) of the Rules, 2019, the recommendation made by the DPC on 01.01.2022 had expired on 31.12.2022.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 3005 - P K Jaiswal - Full Document

M/S. Kanoria Chemicals And Industries ... vs U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors on 10 March, 1997

15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board, (1997) 5 SCC 772 has held that an order of stay, granted during pendency of writ petition/suit or other proceedings comes to an end with dismissal of substantive proceeding and that it is the duty of the Court in such a case to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim orders of the Court and held as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 116 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Sri Budhia Swain & Ors vs Gopinath Deb & Ors on 7 May, 1999

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Budhia Swain (supra), which has been reiterated in three Judges Bench judgment of Prabhjit Singh Soni (supra), has categorically held that the Court is entitled as also duty bound to recall an order, to the extent, that there had been a mistake of the Court which has caused prejudice to the litigant. Accordingly, it is an inexorable posit that this principle is founded upon the justice and good sense which serves 19 a safe and certain guidance for the administration of law, as also of the justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 202 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Bhupinder Singh vs Unitech Ltd. on 23 March, 2023

9.1. The principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit; when perused in light of the dicta of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jang Singh (supra) and Bhupinder Singh (supra) clearly exhibit that there is no higher principle for the guidance of the Courts than the one that no act of the Courts should harm a litigant and that it is the bounden duty of the Courts to see to it that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court then such a person should be restored to the position that the person would have occupied but for that mistake.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - M R Shah - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Ram Sawrup Saroj on 7 March, 2000

In the aforementioned facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in afore mentioned decisions as also the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Punjab and Haryana I am of the considered view that writ petition filed earlier bearing WPS No. 502 of 2022 was filed within the validity period of the list of the candidates recommended by the DPC. Writ petition filed by petitioner therein came to be decided after the period of expiry of the validity period. Stay granted in the said writ petition was operative for the entire validity period, therefore, petitioners herein cannot be made to suffer because the respondents under the interim order of High Court could not pass final order of promotion in favour of petitioners herein, 22 pursuant to the recommendation made by DPC, therefore, I am of the considered view that petitioners are entitled for the relief as claimed for in writ petitions for a direction to the respondents authorities to conclude the proceedings of promotion pursuant to the recommendation made by the DPC dated 01.01.2022.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Greater Noida Industrial Development ... vs Prabhjit Singh Soni on 4 August, 2023

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Budhia Swain (supra), which has been reiterated in three Judges Bench judgment of Prabhjit Singh Soni (supra), has categorically held that the Court is entitled as also duty bound to recall an order, to the extent, that there had been a mistake of the Court which has caused prejudice to the litigant. Accordingly, it is an inexorable posit that this principle is founded upon the justice and good sense which serves 19 a safe and certain guidance for the administration of law, as also of the justice.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1