Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)
Bharat Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 November, 2022 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs P.Gunasekaran on 3 November, 2014

Inter alia, the respondent no.2 has submitted to the effect that the verdicts of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in "Union of India and Others vs P. Gunasekaran" (2015) 2 SCC 610, "Vijay S. Sathaye vs Indian Airlines Limited and Others" (2013) 10 SCC 253, "Sukhdev Singh vs Delhi Development Authority" (2011) 184 DLT 164, "Syndicate Bank vs B. N. Pandey and Anr." (2010) 171 DLT 60, "Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda vs Anita Nandrajog" (2009) 9 SCC 462 to bring forth that exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not provide for scope to this Court to venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The respondent no.2 has thus, sought the dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner with costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 856 - Full Document

Vijay S. Sathaye vs Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors on 6 September, 2013

Inter alia, the respondent no.2 has submitted to the effect that the verdicts of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in "Union of India and Others vs P. Gunasekaran" (2015) 2 SCC 610, "Vijay S. Sathaye vs Indian Airlines Limited and Others" (2013) 10 SCC 253, "Sukhdev Singh vs Delhi Development Authority" (2011) 184 DLT 164, "Syndicate Bank vs B. N. Pandey and Anr." (2010) 171 DLT 60, "Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda vs Anita Nandrajog" (2009) 9 SCC 462 to bring forth that exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not provide for scope to this Court to venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The respondent no.2 has thus, sought the dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner with costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 102 - Full Document

Rama Tyagi vs Delhi Development Authority on 28 July, 2000

48. Through written submissions dated 05.03.2022, the petitioner has reiterated the submissions made in the petition and inter alia placed reliance on the verdict of this Court in CWP No. 4693/1997 titled as "Rama Tyagi Vs DDA" reported as 2000 (56) DRJ (Suppl) 602 wherein, it was held that any punishment imposed by a subordinate officer of the appointing authority is void ab initio and against the provision of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Syndicate Bank vs Sh. B.N. Pandey & Anr. on 1 July, 2010

Inter alia, the respondent no.2 has submitted to the effect that the verdicts of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in "Union of India and Others vs P. Gunasekaran" (2015) 2 SCC 610, "Vijay S. Sathaye vs Indian Airlines Limited and Others" (2013) 10 SCC 253, "Sukhdev Singh vs Delhi Development Authority" (2011) 184 DLT 164, "Syndicate Bank vs B. N. Pandey and Anr." (2010) 171 DLT 60, "Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda vs Anita Nandrajog" (2009) 9 SCC 462 to bring forth that exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not provide for scope to this Court to venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The respondent no.2 has thus, sought the dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner with costs.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Regional Manager, Bank Of Baroda vs Anita Nandrajog on 1 September, 2009

Inter alia, the respondent no.2 has submitted to the effect that the verdicts of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in "Union of India and Others vs P. Gunasekaran" (2015) 2 SCC 610, "Vijay S. Sathaye vs Indian Airlines Limited and Others" (2013) 10 SCC 253, "Sukhdev Singh vs Delhi Development Authority" (2011) 184 DLT 164, "Syndicate Bank vs B. N. Pandey and Anr." (2010) 171 DLT 60, "Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda vs Anita Nandrajog" (2009) 9 SCC 462 to bring forth that exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not provide for scope to this Court to venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The respondent no.2 has thus, sought the dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner with costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 48 - M Katju - Full Document

Sukhdev Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 8 November, 2011

Inter alia, the respondent no.2 has submitted to the effect that the verdicts of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in "Union of India and Others vs P. Gunasekaran" (2015) 2 SCC 610, "Vijay S. Sathaye vs Indian Airlines Limited and Others" (2013) 10 SCC 253, "Sukhdev Singh vs Delhi Development Authority" (2011) 184 DLT 164, "Syndicate Bank vs B. N. Pandey and Anr." (2010) 171 DLT 60, "Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda vs Anita Nandrajog" (2009) 9 SCC 462 to bring forth that exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, does not provide for scope to this Court to venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The respondent no.2 has thus, sought the dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner with costs.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 10 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1