Lalit Maheshwari vs State Of Raj on 22 December, 2010
2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07 & 2007-08
122
SBCW 13044/2010
Lalit Maheshwari Vs. State of Raj.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.25 seconds)Section 5 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 October, 2008
7. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar V. Union of India and Ors.:(2009) 16 SCC 146 followed Dev Dutt :(2008) 8 SCC 725. In paragraph 8 of the Report, this Court with reference to the case under consideration held as under:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P vs Yamuna Shanker Misra & Anr on 21 February, 1997
33. It is trite law that an officer entrusted with duty to write the APARs, has a public responsibility. The 'Reporting Officer' is expected to write the reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra and another (supra), holding thus:
Tek Chand vs The High Court Of Judicature F on 18 February, 2011
11. Mr. H. V. Nandwana, Advocate, adopting the arguments of his colleagues, in addition, vehemently argued that the very object of making of adverse remarks would be lost if they are communicated to the Officer concerned after an inordinate delay. That apart, all Reporting Officers, Reviewing Officers and Accepting Officers, have demitted office either because of retirement or otherwise. To reinforce his submissions, reliance has been placed on the opinion in the case of State of Haryana (supra), para no. 13 and 14: Tek Chand Vs. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur: RLR 1993(2) 91, para no. 12 and 13, and the Instructions regarding the Annual Performance Appraisal, 1976.
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
14. The judgments, referred to and relied upon, would be prospective in operation, as argued by the Additional Advocate General, has been countered stating that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is normally assumed to be law from inception.
B.A.Linga Reddy Etc.Etc vs Karnataka State Transport Auth.& Ors on 18 December, 2014
To fortify the submission, support is sought from the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. A. Linga Reddy & others VS. Karnataka State Authority & Others (Para 34 and 35): 2015 (4) SCC 515.
L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 1997
18. Relying upon the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1985, which defines the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the learned counsel insisted that the matters concerning recruitment to All India Service, which is the subject matter of the writ applications, is recruitment to All India Service, and therefore, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Placing reliance on the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others: 1997 (3) SCC 261, learned counsel has asserted that no direct writ application is maintainable, of the nature preferred by the petitioners.
Ucchab Lal Chhanwal vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 March, 2010
2001-02 (1.4.2001-31.3.2002),
2002-03 (4.1.2002-31.3.2003,
2003-04 (1.4.2003-30.8.2003),
2005-05 (1.4.2005-16.7.2005),
2006-07 (9.5.2006-31.3.2007),
2008-09 (1.4.2008-31.3.2009)
116
C.W.13209/2008
Uchhab Lal Chhanwal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.