Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.45 seconds)
Ramahari Sahu vs Indian Council Of Medical Research on 21 January, 2026 cites

M.R. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1995

"3. ............ Hence, according to him, there is no delay and, in argumendo, even if there is any delay, this being a recurring cause of action, delay should not stand on the way for the relief, unlike the present case, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs UOI & Ors, 1996 AIR 669. We have examined the matter, keeping in mind the facts and law stated above, and do not find any merit to uphold the stand point of the respondents that this OA being hit by limitation is liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 597 - J S Verma - Full Document

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

We have gone through the said decision and we find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case, after taking note of the decisions in the cases of State of Punjab and Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) & Ors, (2015) 4 SCC 34, and Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 INSC 498, fixed yardsticks where recovery, even if not due but paid to an employee, is impermissible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Amrit Lal Berry vs Collector Of Central Excise, New Delhi & ... on 10 December, 1974

"Stare Decisis et Non Queita Movere", in other words, to maintain the fairness, predictability, certainty, uniformity and stability in judicial decisions, the Court/Tribunal should stand by what has been decided and do not vary the decision unless, it is found on examination of any distinguished facts and law in both the cases. It is also a well settled principle of law that where an employee, aggrieved by an action of the government department, approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714], which principle has also been reiterated in the case of Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel -vs- Union of India and others, 2024 INSC 942. We find that the facts and issues involved in the case in hand, is akin the facts and law RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.23 12:39:32 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00352 of 2024 involved in OA Nos.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 281 - M H Beg - Full Document

Durga Madhab Sundaray vs Union Of India & Others .... Opposite ... on 10 August, 2023

8. The respondents in their counter so also in hearing have put/laid much more emphasis on the earlier decision of this case in the case of Gopal Krushna Padhi (supra). According to them, the said case is akin to the case in hand and the same having been dismissed by this Bench, which has not been reversed by any higher forum, the OA is liable to be dismissed. We find that the order in OA No. 542/2020 was dismissed by the Single Bench.
Orissa High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - A K Mohapatra - Full Document
1