Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)
State Bank Of India & Ors. .... ... vs Aspal Kaur ...Respondent(S) on 1 February, 2007 cites

Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994

The law with regard to employment on compassionate grounds for dependents of a deceased employee was laid down by this Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), where this Court observed that, "Appointments in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, exceptions are made in favour of dependents of employees dying in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood".
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 2647 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Union Bank Of India And Ors vs M.T. Latheesh on 18 August, 2006

He also relied on a recent decision of this Court in the case of Union Bank of India & Ors. vs. M.T.Latheesh, (2006) 7 SCC 350, (Dr. AR. Lakshmanan and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ) where this Court held that, "the specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations like the competent authority in this case are better equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed".
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 138 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Bank Of India And Anr vs Degala Suryanarayana on 12 July, 1999

Learned senior counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in support of his contentions. He submitted that this Court has held that the Court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review should not interfere with findings of fact arrived by the competent authorities, except in the case of mala fides or perversity as held in the case of Bank of India & Anr. vs. Degala Suranarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 402 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Lic vs Asha Ramchandra Ambekar on 28 February, 1994

The High Court failed to appreciate that clause (1) of the Scheme provides that in order to determine the financial condition of the family, the amounts paid towards terminal benefits, investments, income from other sources and size of the family etc. are required to be taken into account. However, in the present case while holding the condition of the family is not sufficient for the bare maintenance of the family, the High Court has failed to appreciate that the monthly income of Rs.2055/- p.m. and the terminal benefits of Rs.4,57,607/- has been paid to the family of the deceased. The High Court also failed to appreciate a well settled principle of law laid down by this Court in the case of L.I.C. of India vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) & Anr., (1994)
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 491 - S Mohan - Full Document
1