Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)
Sumant vs Punjab National Bank on 14 August, 2018 cites

Ram Singh & Ors vs Uoi on 17 March, 2015

In view of the judgment, dated 17th March, 2015, read with the subsequent order dated 21st July, 2015, in Ram Singh (supra), it is clear that, on the date of cancellation of the petitioner‟s candidature, the Jat community was not to be treated as a backward community for the State of Delhi, the notification issued by the Central Government in that regard having been quashed by the Supreme Court, and the prayer for according only prospective effect to the said decision hearing also been rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 48 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Sarwan Kumar & Anr vs Madan Lal Aggarwal on 6 February, 2003

Though efforts have been made to convince the Court that our aforesaid judgment needs to be reviewed/modified to make the same prospective, we see no good reason to do so. Invocation of the doctrine of prospective overruling lies in the discretion of the Court (2003 (4) 147 Sarwan Singh & Anr. v. Madan Lal Aggarwal) and has to be dictated by larger public W.P.(C) 7586/2016 Page 4 of 6 interest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 160 - Full Document

Harsh Dhingra vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 28 September, 2001

(2001 (9) SCC 550 Harsh Dhingra v. State of Haryana & Ors.) None of the applicants, though may have been selected, had been given appointment orders prior to the judgment dated 17.03.2015 in W.P.(Civil) No. 274 of 2014. No vested right can, therefore, be recognized in any of the applicants. We find no compelling public interest to invoke the doctrine of prospective overruling. The prayers made in the present applications are, therefore, refused and the present applications are dismissed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 57 - Full Document
1