Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.32 seconds)
Deepak Kumar Gaur vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 May, 2010 cites

Madhya Pradesh Administration vs Tribhuban on 5 April, 2007

11. Learned State counsel has further argued that the compensation in lieu of reinstatement would meet the ends of justice. He has further made a reference to the case law titled as Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban, 2007(9) SCC 748, wherein it has been held that at one point of time reinstatement with full back wages used to be automatically granted but there is a change in the said trend found in recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has further argued that the appellant/workman is not entitled to back wages in the absence of any evidence to show that the appellant/workman was not employed during the interregnum period of about 25 years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 262 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958

Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque 1955 (1) SCR 1104, Nagandra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam 1958 SCR 1240 and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh AIR 1960 SC 1168).
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 746 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Kaushalya Devi And Ors. vs Bachittar Singh And Ors. on 8 April, 1959

Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque 1955 (1) SCR 1104, Nagandra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam 1958 SCR 1240 and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh AIR 1960 SC 1168).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 196 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next