Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.57 seconds)
Onkar Mishra vs M/O Finance on 21 March, 2025 cites

M.V. Subramanyam And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 July, 2001

In fact, the action of the respondents in denying the benefits of aforesaid judgments inspite of clear observation by the Court that the judgment of M. Subramaniam (supra) is to be ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 13 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 14 complied in rem and not to be treated as in personam, is in violation of the National Litigation Policy, the aim of which itself is to transform Government into an efficient and responsible litigant. The respondents, by refusing to fully acknowledge the impact of the decision in the judgment confirmed by the Apex Court seem to be paving the way for multiplicity of litigation which by itself is not a desirable state of affairs particularly when the premier departments are involved.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 36 - Cited by 65 - Full Document

Surendra Singh Negi And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 2 March, 1998

7. It is noted that the issue involved in the present original applications have already been settled in number of cases. This Tribunal in the order dated 23.11.2022 passed in OA No. 200/758/2022 - Surendra Singh and others Vs. U.O.I & Ors while granting similar relief taking into consideration the order dated 13.09.2018 passed in OA No. 200/24/2015 has observed the following: -
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - O P Garg - Full Document

Ravi Dutt And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 January, 2019

9. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the orders passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.3768/2018 decided on 06.01.2022 (Ravi Dutt Shankar & others vs. Union of India & others), which has been filed along with MA No.200/83/2022, wherein it has been held that the judgment of M. Subramaniam (supra) is to be complied in rem and not to be treated as in personam. The relevant pargraphs of the judgment are reproduced below:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 15 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

T.D. Subramaniam Alias Satyapalan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 July, 1981

"10. We are of the considered view that the issue raised in this OA is no more res integra as the same has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. (C) No.13225/2010 - M. ANAND PRAKASH 2025.03.25 Page 9 of 18 10:06:21+05'30' DUBEY 10 Subramaniam v. Union of India & Ors., which has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find from the judgment that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has clarified as to how four years regular service is to be counted for the purpose of granting non-functional upgradation to Group B officer. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras is reproduced below for convenience:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 19 - A C Gupta - Full Document

Suresh Chandra Sharma vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2016

11. The learned counsel for the applicants have demonstrated that the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal at Madras in OA No.1524/2019 - All India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers Association (Chennai Unit) v. Union of India & Ors. and Allahabad Bench in OA No.536/2020 - Suresh Chander Sharma v. Union of India held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam (supra) is judgment in rem and passed orders to extend the benefits of the judgments to the applicants therein.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Government Of Nct Of Delhi vs Somvir Rana (Tgt Eng) on 1 September, 2017

10. It is also to be noted here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (SLP No.77457/2017) in the case of Government of NCT & Anr. vs. Somvir Rana & Ors., has clearly observed that "once the question, in principle, has been settled, it is only appropriate on the part of the Government of India to issue a Circular so that it will save the time of the court and the Administrative Departments, apart from avoiding unnecessary and avoidable expenditure".
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 72 - Full Document
1   2 Next