Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.37 seconds)
Sau. Pushpa Sanjayrao Dhande ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Dept. Of ... on 9 September, 2025 cites

Kazilhendup Dorji vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 29 March, 1994

" 30. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI, reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116, the amicus submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations, viz. alleged corrupt practices of a Chief Minister, and the need to unearth the truth of such allegations, the Court held that the petitioner in the public interest litigation ought not to be non-suited on the ground of laches. Paragraph 15 was placed, which reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 63 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Food Corp.Of India & Ors vs Ashis Kumar Ganguly & Ors on 12 May, 2009

(38) There is no dispute over the above proposition, however, as held in the judgment in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Ashis Kumar Ganguly (supra), delay and/or latches on the part of a Government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. In the present matter, the Respondent No. 7 filed the Complaint after 21 years and the Authorities acted on the basis of it without verifying the actual record before the Deputy Director of Education while granting approval in 2003.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 83 - S B Sinha - Full Document

K.R. Mudgal & Ors vs R.P. Singh & Ors on 30 September, 1986

also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of K.R. Mudgal (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst the Government servants created by the writ petitions filed after several years. It is essential that any one who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should approach the Court as early as possible, as otherwise in addition to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds of the Government servants there would also be administrative complications and difficulties. In the said case even after nearly 32 years the dispute regarding the appointment of some of the respondents to the writ petition is still lingering in this Court. It is held that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the writ petition on the ground of laches."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 151 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union Of India & Others on 23 February, 2007

(35) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 also relied on the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra). This judgment is also of no help to the Respondent No. 7, on the same grounds as stated above. As such, we do no see any illegality or irregularity in the appointment orders issued in favour of the Petitioners. Due procedure is followed and there are no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation against the Petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 397 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next