Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)
Ajay Kumar Singh vs North Eastern Railway on 8 August, 2024 cites

Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Shri Sushil Ansal And Shri Pranav Ansal, ... on 23 December, 2014

2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant superannuated w.e.f. 31.08.2023 as DSK-III C.B.J Scrap Depot Izzatnagar, Bareilly. While posted as DSK-III in C.B.J Scrap Depot Izzatnagar, Bareilly, two complaints were made against the applicant, which were registered as Case No. 1685 of 2002 State Vs. Rajendra Yadav and others under sections 3 U.P (R.P) Act, P.S. RPF Post N.E.R. Izzatnagar, Bareilly and another case No. 1686 of 2002 State Vs. Irfan and others U/s 3 U.P (R.P) Act, P.S. RPF Post N.E.R. Izzatnagar, Bareilly. Against the cognizance and summoning order dated 26.09.2002 in case NO. 1686 of 2002, the applicant preferred a criminal revision No. 661 of 2002, which was allowed by the Additional District and Session Judge Court NO.2 Bareilly vide order dated 12.07.2005 and summoning order was quashed. Likewise, applicant preferred a criminal revision No. 662 of 2002 against the summoning order dated 26.09.2002 which was allowed by the Additional District and Session Judge Court NO.2 Bareilly vide order dated 12.07.2005 and summoning order was quashed. Against the order of revisional court, State of UP preferred criminal revision before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad being Criminal Revision Defective No. 387 of 2006, which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court and till date, defect has not been removed.
Competition Commission of India Cites 4 - Cited by 101 - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Irfan And Others on 2 September, 2013

2. The brief facts of the case are that applicant superannuated w.e.f. 31.08.2023 as DSK-III C.B.J Scrap Depot Izzatnagar, Bareilly. While posted as DSK-III in C.B.J Scrap Depot Izzatnagar, Bareilly, two complaints were made against the applicant, which were registered as Case No. 1685 of 2002 State Vs. Rajendra Yadav and others under sections 3 U.P (R.P) Act, P.S. RPF Post N.E.R. Izzatnagar, Bareilly and another case No. 1686 of 2002 State Vs. Irfan and others U/s 3 U.P (R.P) Act, P.S. RPF Post N.E.R. Izzatnagar, Bareilly. Against the cognizance and summoning order dated 26.09.2002 in case NO. 1686 of 2002, the applicant preferred a criminal revision No. 661 of 2002, which was allowed by the Additional District and Session Judge Court NO.2 Bareilly vide order dated 12.07.2005 and summoning order was quashed. Likewise, applicant preferred a criminal revision No. 662 of 2002 against the summoning order dated 26.09.2002 which was allowed by the Additional District and Session Judge Court NO.2 Bareilly vide order dated 12.07.2005 and summoning order was quashed. Against the order of revisional court, State of UP preferred criminal revision before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad being Criminal Revision Defective No. 387 of 2006, which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court and till date, defect has not been removed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 47 - V Prasad - Full Document

State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013

19. Considering the view expressed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra), and provision of Section 4 (1) and (6) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, we are of the definite opinion that gratuity or pension cannot be withheld on the aforesaid ground. It is an admitted fact that in the instant case, criminal proceedings pending against the applicant had nothing to do with his official duties. Neither any disciplinary proceeding is pending against him nor any loss has been caused to the department by the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 722 - A K Sikri - Full Document

D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982

19. Considering the view expressed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra), and provision of Section 4 (1) and (6) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, we are of the definite opinion that gratuity or pension cannot be withheld on the aforesaid ground. It is an admitted fact that in the instant case, criminal proceedings pending against the applicant had nothing to do with his official duties. Neither any disciplinary proceeding is pending against him nor any loss has been caused to the department by the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2485 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 Next