Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.32 seconds)
Smt. Geeta Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 9 November, 2020 cites

State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014

Hon'ble Apex Court in (2015) 1 SCC 347 titled as State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others has categorically held that non-extension of benefit, accorded in favour of a particular set of employees by the Court, to similarly situated persons violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India as like should be treated alike. This of-course is subject to exception in case ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2020 20:15:35 :::HCHP 7 of delay, laches and acquiescence on part of those who remain dormant and do not challenge wrongful action in their respective cases merely for the reason that their counterparts have succeeded in their efforts earlier by approaching the Court. In such a situation, they are no better than fence sitters. However, as .
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1005 - A K Sikri - Full Document

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

"18. We cannot agree. Where the issue relates to payment or fixation of salary or any allowance, the challenge is not barred by limitation or the doctrine of laches, as the denial of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action, based on continuing wrong. Though the lesser payment may be a consequence of the error that was committed at the time of appointment, the claim for a higher allowance in accordance with the Rules (prospectively from the date of application) cannot be rejected merely because it arises from a wrong fixation made several years prior to the claim for correct payment. But in respect of grant of consequential relief of recovery of arrears for the past period, the principle relating to recurring and successive wrongs would apply. Therefore the consequential relief of payment of arrears will have to be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of the original application. (See: M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 597 - J S Verma - Full Document

Union Of India vs Dr. O.P. Nijhawan on 3 January, 2019

In support of the submissions, learned Advocate General relied upon judgment dated 03.01.2019, passed in Civil Appeal No. 12040 of 2018, titled as Union of India vs. Dr. O.P. Nijhawan, wherein it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that even where the State does not challenge a judgment owing to the fact that financial repercussions are negligible or where the appeal is time barred or on account of wrong legal advice, this would not ipso-facto prevent the State from challenging subsequent decision in similar matters where magnitude of financial implications involved is high.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Supreme Court Employees' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 July, 1989

In (2019) 6 SCC 270 titled as State of Orissa & Another vs. Bhirendra Sunder Das & Others relying upon various previous judgments including Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Associating vs. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 and ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2020 20:15:35 :::HCHP 10 State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhulla (2011) 14 SCC 770, well settled principle was reiterated that dismissal of an SLP in limine simply implies that case was not considered worthy of examination by the Supreme Court for a reason, which may be other than the merits of the case. Such in limine dismissal at the threshold .
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 588 - M M Dutt - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors.Etc on 7 December, 2011

In (2019) 6 SCC 270 titled as State of Orissa & Another vs. Bhirendra Sunder Das & Others relying upon various previous judgments including Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Associating vs. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 and ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2020 20:15:35 :::HCHP 10 State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhulla (2011) 14 SCC 770, well settled principle was reiterated that dismissal of an SLP in limine simply implies that case was not considered worthy of examination by the Supreme Court for a reason, which may be other than the merits of the case. Such in limine dismissal at the threshold .
Supreme Court of India Cites 117 - Cited by 1099 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next