Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)

K A Uma Devi vs State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2018

2.2 Thereafter, opposite party no.1 issued an order on 22.05.2013 directing the CDMO, Khurda to cancel the regular appointment issued in favour of the // 6 // petitioner with an observation that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of continuous service before the date of decision of the apex Court in Uma Devi v. State of Karnataka, 2006 AIR SCW 1991. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed O.A. No.2318 (C) of 2013 and the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, while issuing notice passed the interim order directing to keep the order dated 22.05.2013 in abeyance. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner is continuing against the regular post. As the salary of the petitioner was not released, the tribunal also directed to release the salary. Ultimately, after due adjudication, the tribunal, vide order dated 05.01.2017, disposed of O.A. No.2318 (C) of 2013 and batch by passing the following order:-
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 16 - K N Phaneendra - Full Document

B.L. Sreedhar & Ors vs K.M. Munireddy (Dead) And Ors on 5 December, 2002

In B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy, (2003) 2 SCC 355 (365) it has been held by the apex Court that 'estoppel' is based on the maxim allegans contrarir non est audiendus (a party is not to be heard contrary) and is the spicy of presumption juries et de jure (absolute, or conclusive or irrebuttable presumption) The said judgment has been relied on by the apex Court in H.R. Basavaraj v. Canara Bank, (2010) 12 SCC 458 (469).
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 173 - A Pasayat - Full Document

H R Parvathi vs The Manager Canara Bank on 7 April, 2010

In B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy, (2003) 2 SCC 355 (365) it has been held by the apex Court that 'estoppel' is based on the maxim allegans contrarir non est audiendus (a party is not to be heard contrary) and is the spicy of presumption juries et de jure (absolute, or conclusive or irrebuttable presumption) The said judgment has been relied on by the apex Court in H.R. Basavaraj v. Canara Bank, (2010) 12 SCC 458 (469).
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - P B Sanganagouda - Full Document

M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978

13. The principle of promissory estoppel has been considered by the apex Court in Union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies etc., AIR 1968 SC 718; Chowgule & Company (Hind) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 2021; M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 621; Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414; and // 21 // Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 and many other subsequent decisions also.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1143 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Etc. Etc on 30 September, 1985

13. The principle of promissory estoppel has been considered by the apex Court in Union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies etc., AIR 1968 SC 718; Chowgule & Company (Hind) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 2021; M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 621; Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414; and // 21 // Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 and many other subsequent decisions also.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 574 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd vs Union Of India on 8 October, 1987

13. The principle of promissory estoppel has been considered by the apex Court in Union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies etc., AIR 1968 SC 718; Chowgule & Company (Hind) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 2021; M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 621; Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414; and // 21 // Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 and many other subsequent decisions also.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 24 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Bharat Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 13 September, 1988

13. The principle of promissory estoppel has been considered by the apex Court in Union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies etc., AIR 1968 SC 718; Chowgule & Company (Hind) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 2021; M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 621; Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414; and // 21 // Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 and many other subsequent decisions also.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 425 - M M Dutt - Full Document
1   2 Next