Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)State Of Bihar vs Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors on 20 March, 2009
Upendra
Narayan Singh case cited (supra) is distinguishable on factual
aspects of the matter read with para 53 of Uma Devi's case.
Moreover, if the initial appointment is by the Director of Animal
Husbandry and it is without authority, in such an event order of
termination should have been by competent authority- State
Government. Therefore, termination order is without authority
of law. The cited Full Bench decision has no assistance in the
present case. To that extent, learned Single Judge has committed
error in refusing relief(s) to the appellants.
The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc vs Mahadeva Shetty And Anr on 31 July, 2003
10. Apex Court in the case of Divisional
Controller, KSRTC vs Mahadeva Shetty & Another, (2003) 7
SCC 197 in para 23 held as under:-
Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh And Amr vs B. Satyanarayana Rao (Dead) By Lrs. And ... on 5 April, 2000
38. The Apex Court in the case of
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AND ANOTHER vs B. SATYANARAYANA
RAO, (2000) 4 SCC 262 observed as under:
Thota Sesharathamma And Anr vs Thota Manikyamma (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 23 August, 1991
In THOTA
SHESHARATHNAMMA AND ANOTHER
vs THOTA MANIKYAMMA (DEAD) BY
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES reported in
(1991)4 SCC 312, a two Judge Bench of Apex
Court held that Three Judge Bench decision in
the case of Mst.
Mst. Karmi vs Amru And Ors. on 5 January, 1971
KARMI vs AMRU, (1972
(4) SCC 86) on per incuriam and observed as
under:
Badri Pershad vs Smt. Kanso Devi on 26 August, 1969
".... It is a short judgment
without adverting to any provisions of
Section 14(1) or 14(2) of the Act. The
Judgment neither makes any mention of
any argument raised in this regard nor
there is any mention of the earlier
decision in Seth Badri Parshad vs Srimati
Kanso Devi. The decision in Mst. Karmi
cannot be considered as an authority on
the ambit and scope of Section 14(1) and
14(2) of the Act".
Union Of India & Ors vs S.K. Saigal & Ors on 15 November, 2006
40. A decision contrary to law
and Rules cannot become precedent as held in
the case of UNION OF INDIA vs S K
SAIGAL, (2007) 14 SCC 556.
State Of U.P. And Anr vs M/S. Synthetics And Chemicals Ltd. And ... on 18 July, 1991
In the case of STATE OF U.P. vs SYNTHETICS
AND CHEMICALS LIMITED (1991)4 SCC 139 paragraphs
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1344 of 2018 dt.28-02-2023
12/17
40 and 41, it is held as under:
Jaisri Sahu vs Rajdewan Dubey And Others on 28 April, 1961
In Jaisri Sahu
v. Rajdewan Dubey [(1962) 2 SCR 558: AIR
1962 SC 83] this Court while pointing out
the procedure to be followed when
conflicting decisions are placed before a
bench extracted a passage from Halsbury's
Laws of England incorporating one of the
exceptions when the decision of an appellate
court is not binding.