Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.32 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Prem Prakash Purohit vs State Of Raj & Ors on 26 March, 2012
60. It is also not disputed before this Court that earlier Bench
decision of this Court in Prem Prakash's case (supra), upholding
the vires of Rule 5(ix), which is declared unconstitutional by order
under review, was not brought to the notice of the Court.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P vs Dayanand Chakrawarty & Ors on 2 July, 2013
15. Learned counsel further submitted that the Division Bench
has failed to appreciate that the appointments accorded to the
writ petitioners were the fresh appointments under the Rules of
2010 and they have already received full and final settlement of
the dues under the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993 from their
respective aided institutions and thus, it would be incorrect to
apply the Rules of 1996 to the employees appointed prior to
1.1.04 and extend benefit of pension for the period of service
already covered under the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993.
Learned counsel submitted that the decisions of the Apex Court in
State of UP vs. Dayanand Chakrawarty : (2013) 7 SCC 595 &
Frank Anothny Public School Employees' Assn. vs. Union of India :
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Shri Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle on 11 March, 1996
In this regard, the learned Senior
Counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle : AIR 1996 SC
3069, Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and Anr. Vs. K.
Santhakumaran and Others : (1998) 7 SCC 386, Kunhayammed &
Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2000) 6 SCC 359, Gangadhara
Palo vs. Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. : (2011) 4 SCC 602,
Khoday Distilleries Limited vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara
Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal : (2019) 4 SCC 376, Babloo
Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. : AIR 2019 SC 305 and
Kapico Kerala Resorts Private Limited Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. :
Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm And Anr vs K. Santhakumaran And Ors on 9 September, 1998
We are in
agreement with the view taken in Abbai Maligai Partnership
Firm (supra) that if High Court allows the review petition
filed after the special leave petition was dismissed after
condoning the delay, it would be treated as affront to the
order of the Supreme Court. But this is not the case here. In
the present case, review petition was filed well within time
and since the review petition was not being decided by the
High Court, the appellant filed the special leave petition
against the main judgment of the High Court. We, therefore,
over- rule the preliminary objection of the counsel for the
respondent and hold that this Appeal arising out of special
leave petition is maintainable."
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
"Following the decision in the case of Kunhayammed &
Ors, (supra) we are of the view that the dismissal of the
special leave petition against the main judgment of the High
Court would not constitute res judicata when a special leave
petition is filed against the order passed in the Review
Petition provided the review petition was filed prior to filing
of special leave petition against the main judgment of the
High Court The position would be different where after
dismissal of the special leave petition against the main
judgment a party files a review petition after a long delay on
the ground that the party was prosecuting remedy by way of
(Downloaded on 20/09/2021 at 09:43:01 PM)
(34 of 46) [WRW-25/2019]
special leave petition. In such a situation the filing of review
would be as abuse of the process of the law.