Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.24 seconds)
Municipal Corporation vs Lakhan Prasad Sen on 14 August, 2024 cites

Municipal Corporation vs Rustam Khan on 10 March, 2021

Vide this common judgment WA No.485/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Vijay Kumar Dubey and others), WA No.387/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jaat), WA No.391/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rakesh Shukla and another), WA No.439/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ramkesh Singh), WA 7 No.440/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Sanat Kumar Shukla), WA No.447/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Dheeraj Prasad Tripathi), WA No.461/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Sushil Shukla), WA No.462/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Santosh Gautam and others), WA No.468/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Hassan Mehndi), WA No.469/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rajulal Patel), WA No.481/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ashok Kumar Dubey), WA No.482/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ashok Pathak and others), WA No.484/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ramraj Kushwaha and others), WA No.541/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Vishnu Kant Tripathi), WA No.546/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Harishanker Tiwari), WA No.550/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Amit Yadav and another), WA No.551/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Shashikant Hazari [dead] 8 through LRs Smt. Neelu Hazari and others), WA No.552/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Anil Shukla and others), WA No.612/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rakesh Tiwari and another), WA No.655/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Narendra Kumar Mishra), WA No.663/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Lakhan Prasad Sen and another), WA No.680/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Surendra Kumar Ingwasia and others) and WA No.698/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rustam Khan) are being disposed of. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore the facts are being culled out from WA No.485/2018.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S A Bobde - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Jabalpur vs Anil Shukla on 27 April, 2018

Vide this common judgment WA No.485/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Vijay Kumar Dubey and others), WA No.387/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jaat), WA No.391/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rakesh Shukla and another), WA No.439/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ramkesh Singh), WA 7 No.440/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Sanat Kumar Shukla), WA No.447/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Dheeraj Prasad Tripathi), WA No.461/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Sushil Shukla), WA No.462/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Santosh Gautam and others), WA No.468/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Hassan Mehndi), WA No.469/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rajulal Patel), WA No.481/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ashok Kumar Dubey), WA No.482/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ashok Pathak and others), WA No.484/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ramraj Kushwaha and others), WA No.541/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Vishnu Kant Tripathi), WA No.546/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Harishanker Tiwari), WA No.550/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Amit Yadav and another), WA No.551/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Shashikant Hazari [dead] 8 through LRs Smt. Neelu Hazari and others), WA No.552/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Anil Shukla and others), WA No.612/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rakesh Tiwari and another), WA No.655/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Narendra Kumar Mishra), WA No.663/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Lakhan Prasad Sen and another), WA No.680/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Surendra Kumar Ingwasia and others) and WA No.698/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rustam Khan) are being disposed of. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore the facts are being culled out from WA No.485/2018.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Jabalpur vs Dinesh Kumar Jaat on 4 April, 2018

Vide this common judgment WA No.485/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Vijay Kumar Dubey and others), WA No.387/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jaat), WA No.391/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rakesh Shukla and another), WA No.439/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ramkesh Singh), WA 7 No.440/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Sanat Kumar Shukla), WA No.447/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Dheeraj Prasad Tripathi), WA No.461/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Sushil Shukla), WA No.462/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Santosh Gautam and others), WA No.468/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Hassan Mehndi), WA No.469/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rajulal Patel), WA No.481/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ashok Kumar Dubey), WA No.482/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ashok Pathak and others), WA No.484/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ramraj Kushwaha and others), WA No.541/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Vishnu Kant Tripathi), WA No.546/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Harishanker Tiwari), WA No.550/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Amit Yadav and another), WA No.551/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Shashikant Hazari [dead] 8 through LRs Smt. Neelu Hazari and others), WA No.552/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Anil Shukla and others), WA No.612/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rakesh Tiwari and another), WA No.655/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Narendra Kumar Mishra), WA No.663/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Lakhan Prasad Sen and another), WA No.680/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Surendra Kumar Ingwasia and others) and WA No.698/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rustam Khan) are being disposed of. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore the facts are being culled out from WA No.485/2018.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Jabalpur vs Rakesh Shukla on 4 April, 2018

Vide this common judgment WA No.485/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Vijay Kumar Dubey and others), WA No.387/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jaat), WA No.391/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rakesh Shukla and another), WA No.439/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ramkesh Singh), WA 7 No.440/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Sanat Kumar Shukla), WA No.447/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Dheeraj Prasad Tripathi), WA No.461/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Sushil Shukla), WA No.462/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Santosh Gautam and others), WA No.468/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Hassan Mehndi), WA No.469/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rajulal Patel), WA No.481/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ashok Kumar Dubey), WA No.482/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ashok Pathak and others), WA No.484/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Ramraj Kushwaha and others), WA No.541/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Vishnu Kant Tripathi), WA No.546/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Harishanker Tiwari), WA No.550/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Amit Yadav and another), WA No.551/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Shashikant Hazari [dead] 8 through LRs Smt. Neelu Hazari and others), WA No.552/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Anil Shukla and others), WA No.612/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rakesh Tiwari and another), WA No.655/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Narendra Kumar Mishra), WA No.663/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Lakhan Prasad Sen and another), WA No.680/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Surendra Kumar Ingwasia and others) and WA No.698/2018 (Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Rustam Khan) are being disposed of. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore the facts are being culled out from WA No.485/2018.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Bhagwati Prasad And Ors vs Delhi State Mineral Development ... on 15 December, 1989

In respect of educational qualification, it was held that the employees fulfilled the qualifications. The qualifications were to be seen at the time of 23 initial appointment and not at the stage of regularization particularly after passage of so many years during which the employees have also acquired the experience on the said posts. In this way the appellant-Corporation cannot cancel the order of regularization on the ground that the employees did not possess the educational qualification. The reference has been made to Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361, Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others Vs. Abahi Kumar and others, (2001) 3 SCC 328 and Prabhu Dayal Pandey Vs. M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board and another, 1998 JLJ 98. The employees were working prior to 1988 and had worked for considerable period of time, therefore at the time regularization of their services, the appellant-Corporation cannot reject their claim on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 392 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Buddhi Nath Chaudhary & Ors vs Abahi Kumar & Ors on 21 February, 2001

In respect of educational qualification, it was held that the employees fulfilled the qualifications. The qualifications were to be seen at the time of 23 initial appointment and not at the stage of regularization particularly after passage of so many years during which the employees have also acquired the experience on the said posts. In this way the appellant-Corporation cannot cancel the order of regularization on the ground that the employees did not possess the educational qualification. The reference has been made to Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361, Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others Vs. Abahi Kumar and others, (2001) 3 SCC 328 and Prabhu Dayal Pandey Vs. M.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board and another, 1998 JLJ 98. The employees were working prior to 1988 and had worked for considerable period of time, therefore at the time regularization of their services, the appellant-Corporation cannot reject their claim on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 104 - Full Document

Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. A vs The Regional Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 19 December, 1975

Corporation cannot be allowed to agitate the issue by resorting to one remedy after the other in the endless process. The finality of judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to it. It is an onerous duty of the Court to ensure that undue enrichment is not drawn by the losing party by invoking process of the Court, even after finality of some stage of litigation. While curbing the aforesaid tendency, the Court would be fully justified in resorting to punitive action when the legal process is found to have been abused. The doctrine of stare decisis is very valuable principle of precedent which cannot be departed in ordinary circumstances. In the instant case, the litigation started since long and after crossing different stages particularly the decisions were made by the Writ Courts in favour of the employees. The appellant-Corporation cannot be permitted to rake up the issue time and again in utter 32 disregard to the doctrine of stare decisis. The law laid down in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Vs The Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur (1976) 4 SCC 124 and Green View Tea & Industries vs Collector, Golaghat and another, 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 362 can be relied in this context.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 65 - S M Ali - Full Document

Green View Tea And Industries vs Collector, Golaghat, Assam And Anr. on 17 February, 2004

Corporation cannot be allowed to agitate the issue by resorting to one remedy after the other in the endless process. The finality of judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to it. It is an onerous duty of the Court to ensure that undue enrichment is not drawn by the losing party by invoking process of the Court, even after finality of some stage of litigation. While curbing the aforesaid tendency, the Court would be fully justified in resorting to punitive action when the legal process is found to have been abused. The doctrine of stare decisis is very valuable principle of precedent which cannot be departed in ordinary circumstances. In the instant case, the litigation started since long and after crossing different stages particularly the decisions were made by the Writ Courts in favour of the employees. The appellant-Corporation cannot be permitted to rake up the issue time and again in utter 32 disregard to the doctrine of stare decisis. The law laid down in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Vs The Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur (1976) 4 SCC 124 and Green View Tea & Industries vs Collector, Golaghat and another, 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 362 can be relied in this context.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 79 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document
1   2 Next