Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
B K Damor vs M/O Finance on 8 February, 2019 cites

State Of Bihar And Ors vs Mohd. Idris Ansari on 25 April, 1995

29. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon several judgments, such as Brajendra Singh Yambem vs. Union of India & another [(2016) 6 SCC 20], State of Bihar & Others vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari [1995 SCC (L&S) 1086] and B. V. Gopinath & Others vs. Union of India & Others [(2014) 1 SCC 351] and various other precedents. While some of them were dealt in Keshavlal Trikamlal Maru's case (supra), others were not found to be of immediate relevance for adjudication of these cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 108 - Full Document

Union Of India, Etc. Etc. vs N.P. Dhamania, Etc. Etc. on 20 October, 1994

There also specific reference was made to the judgment of N. P. Dhamania's case (supra). That was a case pertaining to appointment to the post of Director (Marketing) in State Trading Corporation. On finding that the ACC did not clear the name of the applicant and no reasons were stated thereof, the High Court directed the ACC to assess the suitability. The same was affirmed by the 17 Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Except that an observation was made with reference to another case that ACC is the appointing authority, nowhere it was held that for the post in question, ACC was the appointing authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 17 - S Mohan - Full Document

Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. And Anr., ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 30 September, 1991

"8. Had it been a case where the impugned charge memorandum dated 08.08.2014 was the maiden attempt to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, the plea raised by him deserves to be accepted straightway. The reason is that he retired in the year 2005, and the charge-sheet is dated 08.08.2014. However, it is not in dispute that the applicant was issued a charge memorandum dated 22.01.2008, and it was challenged by filing OA No.3271/2010 on the ground that it was issued without obtaining the approval of the competent authority, i.e., the Finance Minister. The plea was accepted and the charge-sheet was set aside through order in OA No.3271/2010. The OA was allowed by following the detailed order dated 26.08.2011 passed by the Tribunal in OA No.3732/2010 and batch, in S. Ramu & others v Union of India & others. The operative portion of the detailed order in S. Ramu‟s case reads as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 116 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Director General Indian Council Of ... vs Dr. Anil Kumar Ghosh & Anr on 6 August, 1998

28. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research and Others vs. Dr. Anil Kumar Ghosh and Another (1998) 7 SCC 97. In this case also, the department did not attach any list of witnesses to the charge memo. The list of documents comprised of certified copies of the assessment registers. The charges leveled against the employee were held proved and punishment was imposed. The High Court in which the order of punishment was challenged has set aside the same by observing that there was violation of principles of natural justice. In the Civil Appeal, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dealt with various contentions and found fault with the order passed by the High Court. The plea that the certified copies of the assessment register should not have taken as evidence except through a witness was repelled. Para 13 of the judgment reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Brajendra Singh Yambem vs Union Of India And Anr on 26 August, 2016

29. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon several judgments, such as Brajendra Singh Yambem vs. Union of India & another [(2016) 6 SCC 20], State of Bihar & Others vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari [1995 SCC (L&S) 1086] and B. V. Gopinath & Others vs. Union of India & Others [(2014) 1 SCC 351] and various other precedents. While some of them were dealt in Keshavlal Trikamlal Maru's case (supra), others were not found to be of immediate relevance for adjudication of these cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 38 - V G Gowda - Full Document

The Union Of India vs Chhedu Singh Chauhan 40 Wps/8012/2018 ... on 5 December, 2018

10. In terms of our above orders, all the OAs listed here are allowed. This order is subject to the final outcome of the B. V. Gopinath's case (supra) under consideration of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India. As mentioned above, the respondents would be within their right to seek recall or review of our orders if the Hon‟ble Supreme Court may reverse the judgment passed by this Tribunal and the High Court."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 226 - Full Document
1