cites: 56604426

G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West ... vs Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors on 2 November, 2000

18. Undoubtedly, a decision on the issue of date of birth is as important for the employer as it is for the employee. Reference in this regard can be made to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v Shib Kumar Dushad, (2000) 8 SCC 696.

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 117 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Union Of India vs C.Rama Swamy And Ors on 9 April, 1997

As expressed in Union of India v C Rama Swamy, (1997) 4 SCC 647, "... the court also ought not to grant any relief even if it is shown that the date of birth, as originally recorded, was incorrect because the candidate concerned had represented a different date of birth to be taken into consideration obviously with a view that that would be to his advantage.

Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 88 - Full Document

Karnataka Rural Infrastructure ... vs T.P Nataraja on 21 September, 2021

Although this Court in T P Nataraja (supra) was looking at the facts therein, in the context of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974, the principle of law laid down would equally apply insofar as change of date of birth in service records is concerned, with which we concur:

Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 75 - M R Shah - Full Document

Secretary & Commissioner, Home ... vs R. Kirubakaran on 21 September, 1993

xxx "20. Although, we have examined the matter from the lens of fraud as well, in view of our discussions hereinabove, the said aspect does not merit deeper probe. We leave it at that. For the present, it would suffice to refer to a pronouncement of recent vintage by this Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T P Nataraja, (2021) 12 SCC 27, where earlier precedents in Home Department v. R Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R Basavaraju, (2016) 15 SCC 781 and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 were 19 SK, J W.P.No.11906 of 2026 considered.

Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 236 - N P Singh - Full Document

State Of M.P. & Ors vs Premlal Shrivas on 19 September, 2011

xxx "20. Although, we have examined the matter from the lens of fraud as well, in view of our discussions hereinabove, the said aspect does not merit deeper probe. We leave it at that. For the present, it would suffice to refer to a pronouncement of recent vintage by this Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T P Nataraja, (2021) 12 SCC 27, where earlier precedents in Home Department v. R Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R Basavaraju, (2016) 15 SCC 781 and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 were 19 SK, J W.P.No.11906 of 2026 considered.

Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 189 - D K Jain - Full Document

L.I.C.Of India vs R.Basavaraju @ Basappa on 6 October, 2015

xxx "20. Although, we have examined the matter from the lens of fraud as well, in view of our discussions hereinabove, the said aspect does not merit deeper probe. We leave it at that. For the present, it would suffice to refer to a pronouncement of recent vintage by this Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T P Nataraja, (2021) 12 SCC 27, where earlier precedents in Home Department v. R Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R Basavaraju, (2016) 15 SCC 781 and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 were 19 SK, J W.P.No.11906 of 2026 considered.

Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974

State of Karnataka - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 54

M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Shyam Kishore Singh on 5 February, 2020

xxx "20. Although, we have examined the matter from the lens of fraud as well, in view of our discussions hereinabove, the said aspect does not merit deeper probe. We leave it at that. For the present, it would suffice to refer to a pronouncement of recent vintage by this Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T P Nataraja, (2021) 12 SCC 27, where earlier precedents in Home Department v. R Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R Basavaraju, (2016) 15 SCC 781 and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 were 19 SK, J W.P.No.11906 of 2026 considered.

Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 55 - A S Bopanna - Full Document

The General Manager, M/S Barsua Iron Ore ... vs The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor ... on 6 July, 2021

In General Manager's Case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para Nos.20 and 21, which reads as under;

Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results