Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.77 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Nawab Hussain on 4 April, 1977
The other decision on the point relied upon by the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 is that of State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain, (1977) 2 SCC 806 wherein the Apex Court held that, "the principle of estoppel per rem judicatam is "the broader rule of evidence which prohibits the reassertion of a cause of action." This doctrine is based on two theories (i) the finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final termination of disputes in the general interest of the community as a matter of public policy, and (ii) the interest of the individual that he should be protected from multiplication of litigation. It, therefore, serves not only a public but also a private purpose by obstructing the reopening of matters which have once been adjudicated upon. It is thus not permissible to obtain a second judgment for the same civil relief on the same cause of action, for otherwise the spirit of contentiousness may give rise to conflicting judgments of equal authority, lead to multiplicity of actions and bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is the cause of action which gives rise to an action, and that is why it is necessary for the Courts to recognise that a cause of action which results in a judgment must lose its identity and vitality and merge in the judgment when pronounced. It cannot therefore survive the judgment, or give rise to another cause of action on the same facts.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay vs T.P. Kumaran on 16 August, 1996
This is what is known as the general principle of res judicata" Reference was also made to Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. T.P. Kumaran, (1996) 10 SCC 561 = 1996(3) SLJ 101 (SC); Zachariah Mathew v. Union of India and Anr., (1988) 7 ATC 478=1988(3) SLJ 33 (CAT); Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1980) 3 SCC 719; Rocky Tyres, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Ajit Jain and Anr., AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 202; The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; (supra) and Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, JT 1993(5) SC 448. The gamut of all the above decisions as well as other decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the parties is that an applicant is supposed to raise all the points in support of his claim in the OA. He cannot be permitted to raise the so called new points in successive OAs. The principle of res judicata would apply to the successive Applications.
Ambika Prasad Mishra Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors. Etc on 9 May, 1980
This is what is known as the general principle of res judicata" Reference was also made to Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. T.P. Kumaran, (1996) 10 SCC 561 = 1996(3) SLJ 101 (SC); Zachariah Mathew v. Union of India and Anr., (1988) 7 ATC 478=1988(3) SLJ 33 (CAT); Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1980) 3 SCC 719; Rocky Tyres, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Ajit Jain and Anr., AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 202; The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; (supra) and Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, JT 1993(5) SC 448. The gamut of all the above decisions as well as other decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the parties is that an applicant is supposed to raise all the points in support of his claim in the OA. He cannot be permitted to raise the so called new points in successive OAs. The principle of res judicata would apply to the successive Applications.
Rocky Tyres And Ors. vs Ajit Jain And Anr. on 17 December, 1997
This is what is known as the general principle of res judicata" Reference was also made to Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. T.P. Kumaran, (1996) 10 SCC 561 = 1996(3) SLJ 101 (SC); Zachariah Mathew v. Union of India and Anr., (1988) 7 ATC 478=1988(3) SLJ 33 (CAT); Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1980) 3 SCC 719; Rocky Tyres, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Ajit Jain and Anr., AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 202; The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; (supra) and Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, JT 1993(5) SC 448. The gamut of all the above decisions as well as other decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the parties is that an applicant is supposed to raise all the points in support of his claim in the OA. He cannot be permitted to raise the so called new points in successive OAs. The principle of res judicata would apply to the successive Applications.
Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 May, 1990
This is what is known as the general principle of res judicata" Reference was also made to Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. T.P. Kumaran, (1996) 10 SCC 561 = 1996(3) SLJ 101 (SC); Zachariah Mathew v. Union of India and Anr., (1988) 7 ATC 478=1988(3) SLJ 33 (CAT); Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1980) 3 SCC 719; Rocky Tyres, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Ajit Jain and Anr., AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 202; The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; (supra) and Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, JT 1993(5) SC 448. The gamut of all the above decisions as well as other decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the parties is that an applicant is supposed to raise all the points in support of his claim in the OA. He cannot be permitted to raise the so called new points in successive OAs. The principle of res judicata would apply to the successive Applications.
Sulochana Amma vs Narayanan Nair on 24 September, 1993
This is what is known as the general principle of res judicata" Reference was also made to Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. T.P. Kumaran, (1996) 10 SCC 561 = 1996(3) SLJ 101 (SC); Zachariah Mathew v. Union of India and Anr., (1988) 7 ATC 478=1988(3) SLJ 33 (CAT); Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1980) 3 SCC 719; Rocky Tyres, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Ajit Jain and Anr., AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 202; The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; (supra) and Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, JT 1993(5) SC 448. The gamut of all the above decisions as well as other decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the parties is that an applicant is supposed to raise all the points in support of his claim in the OA. He cannot be permitted to raise the so called new points in successive OAs. The principle of res judicata would apply to the successive Applications.
S.B. Patwardhan & Others Etc. Etc vs State Of Maharashtra & Others on 4 May, 1977
In support of his contention Mr. Sharma placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of S.B. Patwardhan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1977(2) SLR 235=1979 SLJ 421 (SC). In that case, the seniority rule was held to suffer from the vice that the valuable right of seniority was made dependent upon the mere accident of confirmation which was not permissible.
Union Of India And Anr vs Lalita S. Rao & Ors on 10 April, 2001
12. There can be no quarrel about the proposition of law which is too well settled that the seniority of an employee in a cadre has to be determined in accordance with the rules, if such rules provided for the same (See, Union of India v. Lalita Rao, AIR 2001 SC 1792).