Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.31 seconds)
K.Sundaram vs Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution ... cites

Bimlesh Tanwar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 March, 2003

39. Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be unsettled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India and Another http://www.judis.nic.in 23 v. S.K. Goel and Others (2007) 14 SCC 641, T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana (1989) 4 SCC 71, Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 160 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Thressiamma Jacob Etc. Etc. vs Geologist, Dptt.Of Mining And Geology ... on 20 April, 2015

In Union of India and others v. M.K. Sarkar[2], this Court, after referring to C. Jacob (supra) has ruled that when a belated representation in regard to a “stale” or “dead” issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the “dead” issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court’s direction. Neither a court’s direction to consider a representation http://www.judis.nic.in issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in 25 compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 206 - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009

In Union of India and others v. M.K. Sarkar[2], this Court, after referring to C. Jacob (supra) has ruled that when a belated representation in regard to a “stale” or “dead” issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the “dead” issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court’s direction. Neither a court’s direction to consider a representation http://www.judis.nic.in issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in 25 compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 716 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Ghanshyam Dass & Ors on 17 February, 2011

In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) and others[6], a three-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana[7] and proceeded to observe that as the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and approached the tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the order dated 7.7.1992.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 188 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Jagdish Lal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 May, 1997

In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) and others[6], a three-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana[7] and proceeded to observe that as the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and approached the tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the order dated 7.7.1992.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 614 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next