Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.33 seconds)
State Of Odisha And Others vs Pravasini Sahoo on 2 February, 2026 cites

Union Of India And Ors vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan on 20 November, 1990

3. Learned counsel representing the Respondent vehemently opposes the Appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and reasons on which it has been constructed. He draws our attention to the contents of Paragraph 8.2 where the learned Single Judge has mentioned about non-service of inquiry report and therefore, the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is consistent with the observation of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 and Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074. He also tells us that the attendance register was called for and that the same was manipulated by interpolations, which aspect has been discussed by the learned Single Judge at Paragraph 8.1. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 668 - R B Misra - Full Document

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

3. Learned counsel representing the Respondent vehemently opposes the Appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and reasons on which it has been constructed. He draws our attention to the contents of Paragraph 8.2 where the learned Single Judge has mentioned about non-service of inquiry report and therefore, the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is consistent with the observation of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 and Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074. He also tells us that the attendance register was called for and that the same was manipulated by interpolations, which aspect has been discussed by the learned Single Judge at Paragraph 8.1. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document
1