Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)
Janardhan Sah Son Of Late Chhabilal Sah vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Director ... on 22 November, 2022 cites

Devendra Kumar vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors on 29 July, 2013

The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the various judicial pronouncements on the point and ultimately allowed the appeal of the employer and while allowing the appeal, has inter alia, referred to the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others" (Supra), in particular, paragraphs 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 of the judgement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 173 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the order was ex-facie stigmatic and punitive and such order could be issued only after subjecting the incumbent to a regular enquiry as per service rules and consequently, set-aside the order of termination and by referring to the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar" reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727, the matter was to be taken forward by the authority concerned in accordance with law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Major General Madan Lal Yadav [Retd.] on 22 March, 1996

25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus -- a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent court. In such a case the legal maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav and Lily Thomas v. Union of India.) Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing (jus ex injuria non oritur).
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 225 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 April, 2000

25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus -- a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent court. In such a case the legal maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav and Lily Thomas v. Union of India.) Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing (jus ex injuria non oritur).
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 594 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Daya Sankar Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 November, 2010

reported in (2010) 4 SCC 103 which had dealt with the purpose of seeking information with respect to antecedents wherein it was observed and held that the purpose as to ascertain the character and antecedents of the candidates is to assess his suitability for the post and when the prospective candidate declares in a verification form answer to the queries relating to character and antecedents, the verification thereof can lead to the various consequences which was enumerated in paragraph 15 of the judgement in Daya Shankar Yadav (Supra) and it has been ultimately held that an employee can be 13 discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused employment on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for a criminal case. The judgements passed by the High Court were set-aside and the Hon'ble Supreme Court further examined the issue/ question from another angle from the employer's point of view and held in paragraphs 14 and 15 as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 132 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Vijayakumaran C.P.V vs Central University Of Kerala on 28 January, 2020

10. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 12 SCC 426 (Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. Vs. Central University of Kerala and Others). He has referred to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment to submit that if the order of termination is stigmatic then even for terminating the service of a probationer, natural justice is required to be followed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 39 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document
1   2 Next