Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
The State Of West Bengal vs Rabindra Nath Ghosh on 28 May, 2021 cites

S. Sundaram Pillai, Etc vs V.R. Pattabiraman Etc on 24 January, 1985

In the instant case, it is a case of pension simpliciter. It is not the case of death gratuity or family pension or invalid or compensation pension. Moreover, the said note in our view cannot whittle down the effect of a substantive clause in the 7e(iv) read with the circular dated February 2, 2009. The scope and effect of explanation/note came up for consideration in S. 16 Sundaram Pillai & Ors. v. R. Pattabiraman & Ors., reported in AIR 1985 SC 582. On consideration of a large number of authorities in paragraph 52 the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarised the law in the following words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 588 - S M Ali - Full Document

R.Venkata Ramudu & Anr Etc. vs State Of A.P.Tr.Sec.. on 27 September, 2016

The learned Government Pleader has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Venkata Ramudu & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors. reported in 2016 (16) SCC 464 in which there was a conflict between the general rules and special rules and in that context the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the note appended to the special rules permitting extension of probation period only in those cases where probationer had failed to pass test would be taken into consideration. In the instant case, there is no sub-rule which clearly excludes the efficacy and effects of the substantive provision extending the benefit to the petitioners. There is only one rule governing the field.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

The State Of West Bengal vs Dr. Tonmoy Mondal on 12 March, 2019

We find from the said decision that the expression "compulsory retirement" had been inadvertently used in the said rule 75(a) which deals with retirement upon attaining the age of superannuation. It was in that context the note was found to be relevant as it was not confined in operation to sub rule (aaa) of rule 75(a). For better understanding we may reproduce the relevant portion of rule 75:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Tara Singh Foozdar And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 8 April, 2019

In fact, the judgment relied upon by the learned Government Pleader namely, Tara Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1975 (4) SCC 86 also supports our view as it has been categorically stated in the said judgment that, "the function of the notes is to provide procedure and to control discretion. The real purpose of the notes is that when rules are silent the notes will fill up the gap".
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - G R Moolchandani - Full Document
1