Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.30 seconds)B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978
10. As far as the communication of the decision of not accepting the notice of VSR by incompetent authority is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of B.J.Shelat Vs. State of Gujarat and Others (ibid). We find that in the said case, Honble Supreme Court ruled that the decision to withhold the permission to retire voluntarily should not only be taken but should also be communicated to the Government servant. From the said judgment, we do not find that the communication of decision should also be by the competent authority. Rather in the said case, Honble Supreme Court ruled that the right to retire from service voluntarily is not an absolute right and it is incumbent on the appointing authority to withdraw the permission to retire on the conditions mentioned in the proviso. Para 10 of the judgment reads as under:-
Section 4 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Shyam Sunder Lal And Anr. vs Shagun on 27 November, 1951
47. What was claimed by the respondent was the attribute of finality attaching to the judgment, decree or final order of the Jaipur High Court. The argument was that the Jaipur High Court having given its judgment in 1949 that judgment became final and the respondent had a vested right to that final order and that right had not been taken away by the Constitution either expressly or by necessary intendment. What this Court said was that the review application having been made the appeal became pending and at large, for the judgment was under consideration and therefore no finality had attached to it before the Constitution came into force. The judgment on review was passed by the Rajasthan High Court in April 1950 that is after the Constitution by a High Court of a Part B State constituted under the Constitution and the respondent had no vested right of finality in relation to any judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. The appellant's vested right of appeal to the Privy Council of that State Came to an end as that authority was abolished & at the date of the suit he had no right of further appeal from the judgment of the Jaipur High Court to the Federal Court or to this Court. That being the position it was a judgment with respect to which nobody had any vested right of appeal and therefore, an appeal lay to this Court under Art.133 as construed above. It did not matter in that case whether the appeal was maintainable under Art.133 or Art.135 and
the question that we are considering in the present appeal does not appear to have been urged by learned counsel or discussed by the court in that case and the cryptic observation quoted above cannot be taken as a considered and final expression of opinion that whenever a judgment, decree or final order is passed after the date of the Constitution it must come within Art.133 no matter whether the proceedings were instituted before or after that date.
Relying upon the said judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Shyam Sunder Lal Vs. Shagun Chand (AIR 1967 Allahabad 214), Honble High Court of Allahabad viewed as under:-
Tanajirao Martinrao Kadambande vs H.J. Chinoy on 4 February, 1969
Judicial proceeding. A proceeding in which judicial functions are performed and a final decision affecting either right or liability of one or the other party is given. ( Tanajirao v. H.J.Chinoy, (1969) 71 Bom LR 732).
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Elections Commissioner and Ors (1978 (1) SCC 405), relevant excerpt of which read as under:-
Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur vs Ratilal Motilal Patel on 5 September, 1967
This Court in the case of Tribhuivandas Purshottamdas Thakur v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, (1968) 1 SCR 455 : (AIR 1968 SC 372) while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment of a larger Bench of the same Court observed thus :-
Siri Bhagwan Son Of Sh. Ram Chand Son Of ... vs Sh. Bhagirath Lal Son Of Sh. Ram Chand Son ... on 1 December, 2009
Gajendragadkar, C. J. observed in Lala Bhagwan v. Ram Chand.
Lakhminder Singh Brar vs Uoi & Ors. on 16 September, 2010
5. In the present case, the object sought to be achieved by notification dated 17.01.2014 is that an employee who is vulnerable to such penalty which may have effect of forfeiture of his past service, should not be allowed to get away with the benefit of service and consequently the terminal benefits. The interpretation of the expression judicial proceedings with reference to one set of rules cannot be applied while interpreting the same as used in another set of rules. Our such view is fortified by the judgment of Honble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.13191/2009 decided on 16.09.2010 ( Lakhminder Singh Brar Vs. UOI and Ors ). In the said case, while interpreting the expression of judicial proceedings as used in Rule 69(1) (C) of CCS (Pension) Rules, Honble High Court categorically viewed that the pendency of criminal appeal against the order of acquittal of the petitioner would be continuation of judicial proceedings pending against the Government servant within the contemplation of Rule 9 of Pension Rules and it cannot be said that the pendency of the criminal appeal against the order of acquittal of the petitioner would not amount to judicial proceedings under Rule 69 read with Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. For easy reference, relevant excerpt of the judgment of Honble Delhi High Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-.