Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Radha Ram vs Municipal Committee on 28 April, 1982 cites

Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961

In the latter case reliance for a contrary view was sought to be placed on Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. State of Mysore and Union of India v. Ram Nath Chotory , but both these authorities were more than amply distinguished. Learned Counsel for the respondents did not raise any serious challenge to the correctness of the aforesaid Single Bench judgments of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 58 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Parkash Chand vs S.S. Grewal And Ors. on 18 February, 1974

After careful consideration of the matter, in the light of the judgments referred to above, I am of the opinion that a decree of a Civil Court declaring the order of dismissal of a public servant as void and illegal and treating him to be still in service is to be construed as enjoining upon the Government to reinstate the decree-holder and grant him all benefits and privileges, including his past and future emoluments. Such a decree will entitle the Government servant concerned to claim the necessary reliefs from the Government and in case of the failure of the Government to grant those reliefs, to file a suit or other legal proceedings to enforce the rights given to him by the declaratory decree.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 5 January, 1977

Therefore no issue or bar of limitation now raises any hurdle in this context. It deserves recalling that on the earlier view that the right to salary and emoluments was likely to become barred after a period of three years from the date of the order of termination itself there might have been some justification for the need of a separate suit for emoluments etc. to test it on the anvil of limitation. However, since such a view has now been given the go-by and its anomalous results have been authoritatively noticed by the final Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Maimoona Khatun's case (supra), it seems wholly wasteful to require a fresh spurt of litigation for the recovery of emoluments which necessarily flow from the quashing of the termination order or the grant of the declaratory decree.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 66 - A N Ray - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Krishnan Lal on 14 April, 1959

7. Meanwhile, in June, 1962, the appellant had instituted another suit in forma pouperis claiming a decree for Rs. 8,689 as arrears of salary and allowances and also a decree for Rs. 278/12/- p.m. from 5th June, 1962 to 4th July, 1962 and Rs. 290 p.m. from 5th July, 1962 up to the date of the decree. This suit was decreed by the trial Court on 15th January, 1963. Against the aforesaid two decrees, the State of Punjab preferred Regular First Appeals Nos. 120 and 134 of 1963. Both these appeals were allowed by the Division Bench with the result that both the suits were dismissed vide State of Punjab v. Krishan Murari Lal 1966 Cur L.J. 968 (Punj). The appellant then preferred Civil Appeals Nos. 1298 and 1299 of 1969 in the Supreme Court, Both these appeals were allowed by their Lordships with the following observations:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next