Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Mortha Lakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By ... on 26 February, 2016 cites

Brij Mohan Lal vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2002

5. We have carefully read the aforesaid Division Bench order. The petitioners in the said writ petition, who are Fast Track Court employees appointed on contractual basis, filed that writ petition seeking relief of their absorption and regularization on par with the Fast Track Court Judges, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal (1 supra). In the context of the said relief, the Division Bench started the order with the following observations:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 246 - A Pasayat - Full Document

G. Yadagiri Reddy And Ors. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 25 January, 1989

Therefore, with due respect to the Division Bench, the order in G. Yadagiri (2 supra) does not operate as precedent. We are unable to make the same observations as made by the Division Bench, in this writ petition, for the reason that the Rules do not envisage any such relaxation in favour of O.C. candidates and therefore, neither a direction nor an observation could be made by us contrary to the statutory Rules.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - S S Quadri - Full Document

General Manager Northern Railways & Anr vs Sarvesh Chopra on 1 March, 2002

(emphasis added) Having made those observations, the Division Bench rejected the relief claimed in the said writ petition for absorption and regularization. It, however, directed that the respondents therein, who evidently included the State of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court, may consider the cases of the petitioners therein along with other eligible candidates condoning the age bar if necessary. In our opinion, the abovementioned order cannot be relied upon by the petitioner as there was no precedential value as far as the aspect relating to age relaxation is concerned, for the issue in the said writ petition pertained only to the claim made by the petitioners therein for absorption and regularization and not the age relaxation. The law is well settled that a decision is an authority only for what it has actually decided and a decision operates as a binding precedent on an issue arising in the case. (See General Manager, Northern Railway vs. Sarvesh Chopra , Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat , Krishena Kumar vs. Union of India , Caledonion Railway Co. vs. Walkers Trustee and Arasmeta Captive Power Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Lafarge India (Pvt.) Ltd. ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 179 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Ambica Quarry Works & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 11 December, 1986

(emphasis added) Having made those observations, the Division Bench rejected the relief claimed in the said writ petition for absorption and regularization. It, however, directed that the respondents therein, who evidently included the State of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court, may consider the cases of the petitioners therein along with other eligible candidates condoning the age bar if necessary. In our opinion, the abovementioned order cannot be relied upon by the petitioner as there was no precedential value as far as the aspect relating to age relaxation is concerned, for the issue in the said writ petition pertained only to the claim made by the petitioners therein for absorption and regularization and not the age relaxation. The law is well settled that a decision is an authority only for what it has actually decided and a decision operates as a binding precedent on an issue arising in the case. (See General Manager, Northern Railway vs. Sarvesh Chopra , Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat , Krishena Kumar vs. Union of India , Caledonion Railway Co. vs. Walkers Trustee and Arasmeta Captive Power Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Lafarge India (Pvt.) Ltd. ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 415 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990

(emphasis added) Having made those observations, the Division Bench rejected the relief claimed in the said writ petition for absorption and regularization. It, however, directed that the respondents therein, who evidently included the State of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court, may consider the cases of the petitioners therein along with other eligible candidates condoning the age bar if necessary. In our opinion, the abovementioned order cannot be relied upon by the petitioner as there was no precedential value as far as the aspect relating to age relaxation is concerned, for the issue in the said writ petition pertained only to the claim made by the petitioners therein for absorption and regularization and not the age relaxation. The law is well settled that a decision is an authority only for what it has actually decided and a decision operates as a binding precedent on an issue arising in the case. (See General Manager, Northern Railway vs. Sarvesh Chopra , Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat , Krishena Kumar vs. Union of India , Caledonion Railway Co. vs. Walkers Trustee and Arasmeta Captive Power Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Lafarge India (Pvt.) Ltd. ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 392 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Arasmeta Captive Power Co. Pvt. Ltd & An vs Lafarge India P. Ltd on 12 December, 2013

(emphasis added) Having made those observations, the Division Bench rejected the relief claimed in the said writ petition for absorption and regularization. It, however, directed that the respondents therein, who evidently included the State of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court, may consider the cases of the petitioners therein along with other eligible candidates condoning the age bar if necessary. In our opinion, the abovementioned order cannot be relied upon by the petitioner as there was no precedential value as far as the aspect relating to age relaxation is concerned, for the issue in the said writ petition pertained only to the claim made by the petitioners therein for absorption and regularization and not the age relaxation. The law is well settled that a decision is an authority only for what it has actually decided and a decision operates as a binding precedent on an issue arising in the case. (See General Manager, Northern Railway vs. Sarvesh Chopra , Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat , Krishena Kumar vs. Union of India , Caledonion Railway Co. vs. Walkers Trustee and Arasmeta Captive Power Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Lafarge India (Pvt.) Ltd. ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 78 - D Misra - Full Document

Sumtibai & Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/O ... on 4 October, 2007

In Quinn vs. Leathem , Lord Halsbury held Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.. Dealing with ratio decidendi, the Supreme Court held that reasons for the decision constitute ratio decidendi (See Sanjay Singh vs. U.P.P.S.C. and Sumtibai vs. Paras Finance Co., Mankanwar ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 168 - M Katju - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar Singh vs U.P.P.S.C. & Another on 29 July, 2010

In Quinn vs. Leathem , Lord Halsbury held Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.. Dealing with ratio decidendi, the Supreme Court held that reasons for the decision constitute ratio decidendi (See Sanjay Singh vs. U.P.P.S.C. and Sumtibai vs. Paras Finance Co., Mankanwar ).
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - S Ambwani - Full Document
1