Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.30 seconds)
Shri Gunjan Prasad vs Govt. Of India on 28 April, 2015 cites

Devendra Swaroop Saksena vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 19 December, 2014

34. In respect of the last of the issues, we hold that we have already taken stock of the situation. We find that it has been well admitted by the applicant that the remarks were recorded much after the due date prescribed both by the reporting as well as reviewing officers and also that the representation has been decided almost 9 months late by the competent authority. We have also taken note that in case of Devendra Swaroop Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), it is held that remarks recorded after the expiry of the period prescribed are not sustainable in the eyes of law, particularly when the APAR form had been submitted well within time by the applicant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Amar Kant Choudhary vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 3 January, 1984

(ix) The Apex Court in Amar Kant Chaudhary and Yamuna Shankar Misras case has emphasized the need for sharing information before forming an adverse opinion. The Apex court in Amar Kant Choudhary had asked the Executive to re-examine the existing practice of writing of ACRs to find a solution to the misuse of these powers by officers, who may not be well disposed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 48 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Shri P.C. Wadhwa, Ips Inspector General ... on 16 April, 1987

18. Additionally, we have consulted decisions of the Apex Court in Amar Kant Chaudhary versus State of Bihar [AIR 1984 (SC) 531]; State of Haryana versus P.C. Wadhwa [AIR 1987 (SC) 1201]; Union of India versus E.G. Nambudiri [AIR 1991 (SC) 1216]; S. Ramachandra Raju versus State of Orissa [1994 (5) SLR 199]; Sri Rajasekhar versus State of Karnataka [1996 (5) SLR 643]; State Bank of India versus Kashinath Kher [AIR 1996 (SC) 1328]; State of U.P. versus Ved Pal Singh [AIR 1997 (SC) 608]; Swatantar Singh versus State of Haryana [AIR 1997 (SC) 2105]; Union of India versus N.R. Banerjee [1997 SCC (L&S) 1194]; State of U.P. versus Yamuna Shanker Misra [1997 (4) SCC 7]; State of Gujarat vesus Suryakant Chunilal Shah [1999(1) SCC 529]; P.K. Shastri versus State of M.P. & Ors.[1999(7) SCC 329], B.P. Singh versus State of Bihar [2001 SCC (L&S) 403] and also the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of A.P. Srivastava versus Union of India & Ors [OA No.673/2004 decided on 09.01.2007] on the basis of which following principles could be culled out:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 119 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs E.G. Nambudiri on 23 April, 1991

18. Additionally, we have consulted decisions of the Apex Court in Amar Kant Chaudhary versus State of Bihar [AIR 1984 (SC) 531]; State of Haryana versus P.C. Wadhwa [AIR 1987 (SC) 1201]; Union of India versus E.G. Nambudiri [AIR 1991 (SC) 1216]; S. Ramachandra Raju versus State of Orissa [1994 (5) SLR 199]; Sri Rajasekhar versus State of Karnataka [1996 (5) SLR 643]; State Bank of India versus Kashinath Kher [AIR 1996 (SC) 1328]; State of U.P. versus Ved Pal Singh [AIR 1997 (SC) 608]; Swatantar Singh versus State of Haryana [AIR 1997 (SC) 2105]; Union of India versus N.R. Banerjee [1997 SCC (L&S) 1194]; State of U.P. versus Yamuna Shanker Misra [1997 (4) SCC 7]; State of Gujarat vesus Suryakant Chunilal Shah [1999(1) SCC 529]; P.K. Shastri versus State of M.P. & Ors.[1999(7) SCC 329], B.P. Singh versus State of Bihar [2001 SCC (L&S) 403] and also the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of A.P. Srivastava versus Union of India & Ors [OA No.673/2004 decided on 09.01.2007] on the basis of which following principles could be culled out:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 193 - K N Singh - Full Document

S. Ramachandra Raju vs State Of Orissa on 31 August, 1994

18. Additionally, we have consulted decisions of the Apex Court in Amar Kant Chaudhary versus State of Bihar [AIR 1984 (SC) 531]; State of Haryana versus P.C. Wadhwa [AIR 1987 (SC) 1201]; Union of India versus E.G. Nambudiri [AIR 1991 (SC) 1216]; S. Ramachandra Raju versus State of Orissa [1994 (5) SLR 199]; Sri Rajasekhar versus State of Karnataka [1996 (5) SLR 643]; State Bank of India versus Kashinath Kher [AIR 1996 (SC) 1328]; State of U.P. versus Ved Pal Singh [AIR 1997 (SC) 608]; Swatantar Singh versus State of Haryana [AIR 1997 (SC) 2105]; Union of India versus N.R. Banerjee [1997 SCC (L&S) 1194]; State of U.P. versus Yamuna Shanker Misra [1997 (4) SCC 7]; State of Gujarat vesus Suryakant Chunilal Shah [1999(1) SCC 529]; P.K. Shastri versus State of M.P. & Ors.[1999(7) SCC 329], B.P. Singh versus State of Bihar [2001 SCC (L&S) 403] and also the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of A.P. Srivastava versus Union of India & Ors [OA No.673/2004 decided on 09.01.2007] on the basis of which following principles could be culled out:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 166 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Sri M.A. Rajasekhar vs The State Of Karnataka & Anr on 16 August, 1996

18. Additionally, we have consulted decisions of the Apex Court in Amar Kant Chaudhary versus State of Bihar [AIR 1984 (SC) 531]; State of Haryana versus P.C. Wadhwa [AIR 1987 (SC) 1201]; Union of India versus E.G. Nambudiri [AIR 1991 (SC) 1216]; S. Ramachandra Raju versus State of Orissa [1994 (5) SLR 199]; Sri Rajasekhar versus State of Karnataka [1996 (5) SLR 643]; State Bank of India versus Kashinath Kher [AIR 1996 (SC) 1328]; State of U.P. versus Ved Pal Singh [AIR 1997 (SC) 608]; Swatantar Singh versus State of Haryana [AIR 1997 (SC) 2105]; Union of India versus N.R. Banerjee [1997 SCC (L&S) 1194]; State of U.P. versus Yamuna Shanker Misra [1997 (4) SCC 7]; State of Gujarat vesus Suryakant Chunilal Shah [1999(1) SCC 529]; P.K. Shastri versus State of M.P. & Ors.[1999(7) SCC 329], B.P. Singh versus State of Bihar [2001 SCC (L&S) 403] and also the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of A.P. Srivastava versus Union of India & Ors [OA No.673/2004 decided on 09.01.2007] on the basis of which following principles could be culled out:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 71 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

State Bank Of India Etc vs Kashinath Kher & Ors. Etc on 8 February, 1996

18. Additionally, we have consulted decisions of the Apex Court in Amar Kant Chaudhary versus State of Bihar [AIR 1984 (SC) 531]; State of Haryana versus P.C. Wadhwa [AIR 1987 (SC) 1201]; Union of India versus E.G. Nambudiri [AIR 1991 (SC) 1216]; S. Ramachandra Raju versus State of Orissa [1994 (5) SLR 199]; Sri Rajasekhar versus State of Karnataka [1996 (5) SLR 643]; State Bank of India versus Kashinath Kher [AIR 1996 (SC) 1328]; State of U.P. versus Ved Pal Singh [AIR 1997 (SC) 608]; Swatantar Singh versus State of Haryana [AIR 1997 (SC) 2105]; Union of India versus N.R. Banerjee [1997 SCC (L&S) 1194]; State of U.P. versus Yamuna Shanker Misra [1997 (4) SCC 7]; State of Gujarat vesus Suryakant Chunilal Shah [1999(1) SCC 529]; P.K. Shastri versus State of M.P. & Ors.[1999(7) SCC 329], B.P. Singh versus State of Bihar [2001 SCC (L&S) 403] and also the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of A.P. Srivastava versus Union of India & Ors [OA No.673/2004 decided on 09.01.2007] on the basis of which following principles could be culled out:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 88 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Anr vs Ved Pal Singh & Anr on 7 October, 1996

18. Additionally, we have consulted decisions of the Apex Court in Amar Kant Chaudhary versus State of Bihar [AIR 1984 (SC) 531]; State of Haryana versus P.C. Wadhwa [AIR 1987 (SC) 1201]; Union of India versus E.G. Nambudiri [AIR 1991 (SC) 1216]; S. Ramachandra Raju versus State of Orissa [1994 (5) SLR 199]; Sri Rajasekhar versus State of Karnataka [1996 (5) SLR 643]; State Bank of India versus Kashinath Kher [AIR 1996 (SC) 1328]; State of U.P. versus Ved Pal Singh [AIR 1997 (SC) 608]; Swatantar Singh versus State of Haryana [AIR 1997 (SC) 2105]; Union of India versus N.R. Banerjee [1997 SCC (L&S) 1194]; State of U.P. versus Yamuna Shanker Misra [1997 (4) SCC 7]; State of Gujarat vesus Suryakant Chunilal Shah [1999(1) SCC 529]; P.K. Shastri versus State of M.P. & Ors.[1999(7) SCC 329], B.P. Singh versus State of Bihar [2001 SCC (L&S) 403] and also the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of A.P. Srivastava versus Union of India & Ors [OA No.673/2004 decided on 09.01.2007] on the basis of which following principles could be culled out:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 41 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Swatantar Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 3 March, 1997

18. Additionally, we have consulted decisions of the Apex Court in Amar Kant Chaudhary versus State of Bihar [AIR 1984 (SC) 531]; State of Haryana versus P.C. Wadhwa [AIR 1987 (SC) 1201]; Union of India versus E.G. Nambudiri [AIR 1991 (SC) 1216]; S. Ramachandra Raju versus State of Orissa [1994 (5) SLR 199]; Sri Rajasekhar versus State of Karnataka [1996 (5) SLR 643]; State Bank of India versus Kashinath Kher [AIR 1996 (SC) 1328]; State of U.P. versus Ved Pal Singh [AIR 1997 (SC) 608]; Swatantar Singh versus State of Haryana [AIR 1997 (SC) 2105]; Union of India versus N.R. Banerjee [1997 SCC (L&S) 1194]; State of U.P. versus Yamuna Shanker Misra [1997 (4) SCC 7]; State of Gujarat vesus Suryakant Chunilal Shah [1999(1) SCC 529]; P.K. Shastri versus State of M.P. & Ors.[1999(7) SCC 329], B.P. Singh versus State of Bihar [2001 SCC (L&S) 403] and also the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of A.P. Srivastava versus Union of India & Ors [OA No.673/2004 decided on 09.01.2007] on the basis of which following principles could be culled out:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 111 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next