Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)
Rajaram Jaiswal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2018 cites

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana vs Jagdev Singh on 29 July, 2016

In the said judgment the Court distinguished the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) on the pretext that if a person belong to Group-C retired from the service and given his undertaking, which cannot be equated with the undertaking given by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), which was dealt with in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra). It was further held that the undertaking is not specific to the recovery, however, it cannot be relied upon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 921 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014

11. The issue regarding recovery from a retired employee also came for consideration in the case of Om Prakash Verma Vs. State of M.P. & others reported in 2017(3) MPLJ 175 whereby the Single Bench of this Court quashed the recovery distinguishing the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) stating that the said judgment only deals proposition No. (ii) of the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) and do not apply for other propositions particularly to the case of Group-C and Group-D employees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Soni vs Pramukh Sachiv on 21 June, 2016

11. The issue regarding recovery from a retired employee also came for consideration in the case of Om Prakash Verma Vs. State of M.P. & others reported in 2017(3) MPLJ 175 whereby the Single Bench of this Court quashed the recovery distinguishing the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) stating that the said judgment only deals proposition No. (ii) of the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) and do not apply for other propositions particularly to the case of Group-C and Group-D employees.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986

In a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as (1986) 3 SCC 136 (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another), a condition in the appointment letter that the Corporation could terminate the services of the employees without prior notice if it was satisfied that the employee was unfit medically or was guilty of any subordination in respect of other misconduct, was found to be illegal. The Supreme Court held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 111 - Cited by 1191 - D P Madon - Full Document

Kedar Nath Motani And Ors. vs Prahlad Rai And Ors. on 25 September, 1959

In Kedar Nath Motani and others v. Prahlad Rai and others, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 861 reversing the High Court and restoring the decree passed by the trial court declaring the appellants' title to the lands in suit and directing the respondents who were the appellants' benamidars to restore possession, this Court, after discussing the English and Indian law on the subject, said (at page 873):
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 100 - Full Document
1