Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.66 seconds)
P M Pandi vs Central Silk Board on 8 April, 2026 cites

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana vs Jagdev Singh on 29 July, 2016

11. The applicants failed to show if these orders in any way could overcome the ruling of Hon'ble apex court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others v. Jagdev Singh on 29.07.2016 reported in 2016 14 SCC 267 as their facts are different. Hence, these rulings do not help in any way in the Review Application. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order in the O.A and the Review Application is without merit. Hence, we pass the following orders:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 921 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014

267. He emphasizes that none of these citations are either in the nature of exception to the said case or which can in any way take precedence over the said Hon'ble apex court order as the facts of these cases are not the same where at the time of fixation of pay an undertaking was given by the applicants that in the event of pay having been fixed in a manner contrary to the provisions contained in these Rules, as detected subsequently, any excess payment so made shall be refunded SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.04.09 17:26:50+05'30' 6 R.A.No.170/23/2025/CAT/BANGALORE by them to the Government either by adjustment against future payments due to them or otherwise. Once such an undertaking was given, the respondents argue that then squarely the case comes under the exception to the State of Punjab and Ors v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1