Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (2.61 seconds)
P.K. Maidamwar vs Shri Malay Shrivastava Principal ... on 17 March, 2026 cites

State Of Haryana & Ors. Etc vs O.P. Gupta Etc on 12 January, 1996

8. Perusal of both the judgments in the case of K. Samba Moorthy (supra) & Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, shows that in both the decisions ratio of previous decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 166; (3 judge Bench); A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, (2003) 7 SCC 238 (3 judge Bench); and Union of India vs. B.M. Jha (2007) 11 SCC 632 has not been taken into consideration, therefore, I am bound to follow the decision given by this Court in the case of Atul Bajapei (supra) which is based on the decisions in the cases of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 166; State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1996 SC 2936; Union of India vs. B.M. Jha, (2007) 11 SCC 632; and K. Ananda Rao and others vs. S.S. Rawat, IAS and others, (2019) 13 SCC 24.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 167 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 March, 1989

8. Perusal of both the judgments in the case of K. Samba Moorthy (supra) & Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, shows that in both the decisions ratio of previous decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 166; (3 judge Bench); A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, (2003) 7 SCC 238 (3 judge Bench); and Union of India vs. B.M. Jha (2007) 11 SCC 632 has not been taken into consideration, therefore, I am bound to follow the decision given by this Court in the case of Atul Bajapei (supra) which is based on the decisions in the cases of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 166; State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1996 SC 2936; Union of India vs. B.M. Jha, (2007) 11 SCC 632; and K. Ananda Rao and others vs. S.S. Rawat, IAS and others, (2019) 13 SCC 24.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 198 - N D Ojha - Full Document

Union Of India vs B.M. Jha on 24 October, 2007

8. Perusal of both the judgments in the case of K. Samba Moorthy (supra) & Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, shows that in both the decisions ratio of previous decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 166; (3 judge Bench); A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, (2003) 7 SCC 238 (3 judge Bench); and Union of India vs. B.M. Jha (2007) 11 SCC 632 has not been taken into consideration, therefore, I am bound to follow the decision given by this Court in the case of Atul Bajapei (supra) which is based on the decisions in the cases of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 166; State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1996 SC 2936; Union of India vs. B.M. Jha, (2007) 11 SCC 632; and K. Ananda Rao and others vs. S.S. Rawat, IAS and others, (2019) 13 SCC 24.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 87 - Full Document

A.K. Soumini vs State Bank Of Travancore & Anr on 14 August, 2003

8. Perusal of both the judgments in the case of K. Samba Moorthy (supra) & Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, shows that in both the decisions ratio of previous decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 166; (3 judge Bench); A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, (2003) 7 SCC 238 (3 judge Bench); and Union of India vs. B.M. Jha (2007) 11 SCC 632 has not been taken into consideration, therefore, I am bound to follow the decision given by this Court in the case of Atul Bajapei (supra) which is based on the decisions in the cases of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 166; State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1996 SC 2936; Union of India vs. B.M. Jha, (2007) 11 SCC 632; and K. Ananda Rao and others vs. S.S. Rawat, IAS and others, (2019) 13 SCC 24.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 105 - Full Document

J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Ã Appellant vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr. Ã Respondents on 1 February, 2007

"32. We may now deal with the judgment in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and another (supra) in detail. The facts of that case were that the respondent was dismissed from service on the basis of inquiry conducted by the competent authority. The Labour Court held that the inquiry was not fair and proper and permitted the parties to adduce evidence on the charges levelled against the respondent. After considering the evidence, the Labour Court gave benefit of doubt to the respondent and substituted the punishment of dismissal from service with that of stoppage of increments for two years. On an application filed by the respondent, the Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages for the period of unemployment. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATTYENDAR NAGDEVE Signing time: 18-03-2026 18:09:18 7 Division Bench declined to interfere by observing that the employer had willfully violated the order of the Labour Court. On an application made by the respondent under Section 6(6) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court amended the award. This Court upheld the power of the Labour Court to amend the award but did not approve the award of full back wages. After noticing several precedents to which reference has been made hereinabove, the two Judge Bench observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 579 - Full Document

K. Ananda Rao vs Sri S.S. Rawat, Ias on 7 March, 2019

8. Perusal of both the judgments in the case of K. Samba Moorthy (supra) & Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, shows that in both the decisions ratio of previous decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 166; (3 judge Bench); A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, (2003) 7 SCC 238 (3 judge Bench); and Union of India vs. B.M. Jha (2007) 11 SCC 632 has not been taken into consideration, therefore, I am bound to follow the decision given by this Court in the case of Atul Bajapei (supra) which is based on the decisions in the cases of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 166; State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1996 SC 2936; Union of India vs. B.M. Jha, (2007) 11 SCC 632; and K. Ananda Rao and others vs. S.S. Rawat, IAS and others, (2019) 13 SCC 24.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 9 - U U Lalit - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K.V.L.Narasimha Rao & Ors on 19 April, 1999

In fact, in the said judgment the view taken by the High Court of grant of salary was set aside by this Court. Therefore, we are of the view that in the light of the consistent view taken by this Court in the abovementioned cases, arrears of salary cannot be granted to the respondent in view of the principle of "no work no pay" in case of retrospective promotion. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 17-5-2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as also the order dated 11-1-2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 79 - Full Document
1   2 Next