Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.31 seconds)Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs M.V. Mohanan Nair on 5 March, 2020
In view of the said observation, as also, law laid down
in M V Mohanan Nair case (supra) in our considered view the submission of
the counsel for the applicant that said judgment i.e. M V Mohanan Nair is not
applicable in the present case is not tenable and same is rejected.
Union Of India & Ors vs Rajpal Singh on 7 November, 2008
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.
V. Mohannan (supra) in categorical terms held that the decision rendered in Union of
India vs. Rajpal case ought not to have been quoted as precedent having been
dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in re-
filing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus,
"49.
All India Association Of Central Excise ... vs Union Of India on 29 March, 2012
7.11 It is also stated that after considering various directions issued by different
Bench of this Tribunal as also Hon'ble High Courts, including the order passed
by CAT Principal Bench in OA 2806/2016 dated 26.02.2020 in the case of All
India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officer, Delhi & Ors
v/s Union of India & Ors, as also the order passed in the case of Hari Ram &
Anr v/s Registrar General, Delhi High Court etc, the CBEC sought further
clarifications/opinions from the competent authority i.e. DOPT. In response to
it, DOPT vide its instructions/clarification dated 12.01.2021 reiterated earlier
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA/103/2018) 17
position that NFU granted in GP 5400/- in PB-2 needs to be offset against one
Financial Upgradation as per MACP policy. Further, the DOPT clarified that
the judgment/orders are not in consistent with the MACP Scheme, requires to
be challenged in higher court.
Hari Ram & Anr vs Registrar General, Delhi High Court on 20 December, 2017
7.11 It is also stated that after considering various directions issued by different
Bench of this Tribunal as also Hon'ble High Courts, including the order passed
by CAT Principal Bench in OA 2806/2016 dated 26.02.2020 in the case of All
India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officer, Delhi & Ors
v/s Union of India & Ors, as also the order passed in the case of Hari Ram &
Anr v/s Registrar General, Delhi High Court etc, the CBEC sought further
clarifications/opinions from the competent authority i.e. DOPT. In response to
it, DOPT vide its instructions/clarification dated 12.01.2021 reiterated earlier
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/OA/103/2018) 17
position that NFU granted in GP 5400/- in PB-2 needs to be offset against one
Financial Upgradation as per MACP policy. Further, the DOPT clarified that
the judgment/orders are not in consistent with the MACP Scheme, requires to
be challenged in higher court.
U.S.Sharma vs Union Of India . on 2 November, 2015
(iii) Common order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the CAT, Mumbai Bench in
OA 44/2017 in the case of V U Shah v/s Union of India alongwith other
cognate OAs.
Sunil Rajpal vs Union Of India on 13 October, 2017
Therefore, the learned standing counsel submitted that the
orders/judgment based on Rajpal's case, i.e., S Balakrishnan case is not
applicable to the present case.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 August, 1986
In Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 146 it has been held by this
Court that the dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking
order does not justify any inference that, by necessary implication, the
contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have
been rejected by the Supreme Court. It has been further held that the effect of
a non-speaking order of dismissal of a special leave petition without anything
more indicating the grounds or reasons of its dismissal must, by necessary
implication, be taken to be that the Supreme Court had decided only that it was
not a fit case where special leave petition should be granted.
Union Of India vs All India Services Pensioners ... on 14 January, 1988
In Union of India
v. All India Services Pensioners Association (1988) 2 SCC 580 this Court has
given reasons for dismissing the special leave petition. When such reasons are
given, the decision becomes one which attracts Article 141 of the Constitution
which provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on
all the courts within the territory of India. It, therefore, follows that when no
reason is given, but a special leave petition is dismissed simplicitor, it cannot
be said that there has been a declaration of law by this Court under Article 141
of the Constitution. [underlining added]