Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.83 seconds)D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
The above decision was rendered by a bench of three Judges of which one of us was a member. It is seen from the above order that there is no reference to the liability of the Union of India and the State of Haryana to pay the gratuity to the pensioner who was involved in that case. The first question considered related to the payment of enhanced pension. It is not known whether the question relating to gratuity was pressed before this Court or not. There is no reference to the liability to pay gratuity in the said order. The only point considered by this Court by the above order was the point involved in question No. 1, referred to therein, namely, whether the enhanced pension under the liberalised pension scheme was payable with effect from 1st October, 1974 and insofar as that question was concerned, the view taken by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana was affirmed. It may be that the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana may be binding on the parties to that petition as res judicata. But the above order of this Court cannot be considered as a precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution to hold that the liability to pay gratuity was also governed by the decision in D.S. NAKARA'S case.
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mattulal vs Radhe Lal on 23 April, 1974
It has been repeatedly laid down by the Supreme Court that the decision of the larger Bench prevails over the decision of the smaller benches vide Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar v. Waman Shripad Mage (; Mattulala v. Radhe Lal (A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1569); Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 433). Even assuming that some aspects have not been taken into account by the Supreme Court, no Court or Tribunal of India can take a view different from that taken by the Supreme Court.
Union Of India & Anr vs K.S. Subramanian on 30 July, 1976
It has been repeatedly laid down by the Supreme Court that the decision of the larger Bench prevails over the decision of the smaller benches vide Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar v. Waman Shripad Mage (; Mattulala v. Radhe Lal (A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1569); Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 433). Even assuming that some aspects have not been taken into account by the Supreme Court, no Court or Tribunal of India can take a view different from that taken by the Supreme Court.
T. Govindaraja Mudaliar Etc. Etc vs The State Of Tamil Nadu & Others on 9 January, 1973
As held by the Supreme Court in T.Govindaraja Mudaliar v. State of Tamilnadu () merely because the aspect presented in the present appeal was no1 expressly considered or a decision given, that will not take away the binding effect of those decisions of the Supreme Court." Vide Somavant: v. State of Punjab ().
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Amending Act, 1897
State Government Pensioners' ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 July, 1986
It may be pertinent to note that even in the Andhra Pradesh State Government Pensions Association case the judgment in V,P Gautam's was specifically referred to but the Supreme Court did not state that it was not correctly decided.
Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar And Another vs Waman Shripad Mage (Since Dead) Through ... on 10 August, 1981
It has been repeatedly laid down by the Supreme Court that the decision of the larger Bench prevails over the decision of the smaller benches vide Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar v. Waman Shripad Mage (; Mattulala v. Radhe Lal (A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1569); Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 433). Even assuming that some aspects have not been taken into account by the Supreme Court, no Court or Tribunal of India can take a view different from that taken by the Supreme Court.
1