Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.42 seconds)
Shri. Maruti R. Wankhede vs Union Of India Through The Secretary And ... on 8 September, 2021 cites

Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009

However, Mr. Marne sought to distinguish the decision 7 24-WP-8470-2019 in M. K. Sarkar (supra) by contending that the earlier larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Sualal Yadav vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (1976) 4 SCC 853, had not been noticed, wherein it was held that the appellant having invoked the writ jurisdiction of the relevant High Court challenging the order of the Governor dismissing a review application on merits, it was not open to the High Court to resurrect the ground of delay in applying for review at a remote stage and make it a ground for dismissing the writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 716 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Sualal Yadav vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 15 September, 1975

However, Mr. Marne sought to distinguish the decision 7 24-WP-8470-2019 in M. K. Sarkar (supra) by contending that the earlier larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Sualal Yadav vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (1976) 4 SCC 853, had not been noticed, wherein it was held that the appellant having invoked the writ jurisdiction of the relevant High Court challenging the order of the Governor dismissing a review application on merits, it was not open to the High Court to resurrect the ground of delay in applying for review at a remote stage and make it a ground for dismissing the writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 22 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Thressiamma Jacob Etc. Etc. vs Geologist, Dptt.Of Mining And Geology ... on 20 April, 2015

(i) When an order is passed by a Court/Tribunal to consider or deal with a representation of an individual raising a stale or a dead claim and such claim is rejected even on merits on an impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience of the order of the Court/Tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale or dead claim, nor amount to some kind of "acknowledgment of a jural relationship" to give rise to a fresh cause of action. [C. Jacob (supra)];
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 206 - Full Document

State Of M.P. & Ors vs Yogendra Shrivastava on 7 October, 2009

In the decisions in M. R. Gupta (supra) and Yogendra Shrivastava (supra) cited by Mr. Marne, belated challenges were laid before the Tribunal/Court. The Supreme Court entertained the appeals on the ground that in each of such case, there was an assertion of a continuing wrong which gave rise to a recurring cause of action. The aggrieved employees were receiving salary every month less than what they were entitled to in accordance with the relevant rules. It is in such circumstance that the Supreme Court held that payment of less salary each month results in a fresh cause of action arising every month when the employee is paid monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to the rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 167 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Shiv Dass vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 January, 2007

15. However, it is clear from the decision in Shiv Dass (supra) that a belated claim for pension, could be rejected by the Court by not overlooking the delay caused by the employee in approaching the Court. Although Courts are generally indulgent if a claim is made by a retired employee claiming pension, such indulgence ought not to be extended to someone like the petitioner who, despite being aware of his dis-entitlement to pension, continued to be in deep slumber, while at the same time changing employer after employer. The conduct of the 13 24-WP-8470-2019 petitioner, we are minded to observe, is such that he was all along interested in looking for greener pastures elsewhere, despite obtaining employment opportunities under different employers, and the circumstance that his claim for pension had been spurned did not at all bother him while he was in active service. The idea to claim pension gained ground only after he had retired from service once and for all.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 613 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Jai Dev Gupta vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 3 September, 1997

The Tribunal, in our view, rightly applied the ratio of the decisions in Jai Dev Gupta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., reported in (1997) 11 SCC 13, Naresh Kumar vs. Department of Atomic Energy & Ors., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 525, and Udai Shankar Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in (2013) 2 SCC 435, to the effect that submission of representations is not a valid ground for approaching the forum late and favourable recommendation, if any, pursuant to such representation did not vest any right in the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 110 - Full Document

Udai Shankar Awasthi vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 9 January, 2013

The Tribunal, in our view, rightly applied the ratio of the decisions in Jai Dev Gupta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., reported in (1997) 11 SCC 13, Naresh Kumar vs. Department of Atomic Energy & Ors., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 525, and Udai Shankar Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in (2013) 2 SCC 435, to the effect that submission of representations is not a valid ground for approaching the forum late and favourable recommendation, if any, pursuant to such representation did not vest any right in the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 168 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next