Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
Sohan Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And ... on 8 April, 2026 cites

Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. ... vs Ram Gopal on 30 January, 2020

6. Admittedly, the appellant retired on 01.07.2015 and is seeking the record of his service as work charge for the period from 13.07.1988 to 21.01.1992, from the various stations where he had worked as such. The said record is stated to be foundational for the appellant to claim the 23 years benefit which became due on 22.01.2015 subject to passing of Powercom paper. No material has been placed on record or brought to our notice that the appellant had ever passed the said mandatory Powercom papers. The learned Single Judge on applying the principles of law laid down in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others vs. Ram Gopal, reported in (2021) 13 SCC 225, Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2717, State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179 and Union of India and others vs. M.K. Sarkar, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59, concluded that the appellant had approached the writ Court after a considerable lapse of time SUMIT KUMAR 2026.04.16 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -5- LPA-961-2026 and no plausible explanation has been offered for the delay in filing the writ petition. It was thus held that repeated representations will not keep the issues alive and the writ petition was dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 79 - S A Bobde - Full Document

State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors on 23 August, 2013

6. Admittedly, the appellant retired on 01.07.2015 and is seeking the record of his service as work charge for the period from 13.07.1988 to 21.01.1992, from the various stations where he had worked as such. The said record is stated to be foundational for the appellant to claim the 23 years benefit which became due on 22.01.2015 subject to passing of Powercom paper. No material has been placed on record or brought to our notice that the appellant had ever passed the said mandatory Powercom papers. The learned Single Judge on applying the principles of law laid down in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others vs. Ram Gopal, reported in (2021) 13 SCC 225, Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2717, State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179 and Union of India and others vs. M.K. Sarkar, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59, concluded that the appellant had approached the writ Court after a considerable lapse of time SUMIT KUMAR 2026.04.16 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -5- LPA-961-2026 and no plausible explanation has been offered for the delay in filing the writ petition. It was thus held that repeated representations will not keep the issues alive and the writ petition was dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 387 - D Misra - Full Document

Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State Of U.P. on 28 February, 2022

8. It is trite law that repeated representations do not keep the issues alive and a stale claim cannot be revived even if a representation, filed at a belated stage, is subsequently decided by the authority concerned. The same would not overcome the fetters that are applied to the remedy on account of delay and laches, on the part of the litigant seeking to raise a belated claim or revive any dead issues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. and others, (2022) 15 SCC 536, has held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 35 - M R Shah - Full Document

Mrinmoy Maity vs Chhanda Koley on 26 November, 2018

6. Admittedly, the appellant retired on 01.07.2015 and is seeking the record of his service as work charge for the period from 13.07.1988 to 21.01.1992, from the various stations where he had worked as such. The said record is stated to be foundational for the appellant to claim the 23 years benefit which became due on 22.01.2015 subject to passing of Powercom paper. No material has been placed on record or brought to our notice that the appellant had ever passed the said mandatory Powercom papers. The learned Single Judge on applying the principles of law laid down in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others vs. Ram Gopal, reported in (2021) 13 SCC 225, Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and others, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2717, State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179 and Union of India and others vs. M.K. Sarkar, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59, concluded that the appellant had approached the writ Court after a considerable lapse of time SUMIT KUMAR 2026.04.16 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -5- LPA-961-2026 and no plausible explanation has been offered for the delay in filing the writ petition. It was thus held that repeated representations will not keep the issues alive and the writ petition was dismissed.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1