Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016
In Avtar Singh v. Union of
India & others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
considered various situations and very fairly laid down certain
principles. One of the principles is that long delay in the matter
can be held to be in favour of the applicant. However, in the
matter in question, there was no delay on the part of the
respondents. The facts of the case are that as soon as it came to
the notice of the respondent, they took action giving the applicant
an opportunity to defend himself. The applicant could not prove
7
that he had no knowledge of the cases against him. Thereafter, the
respondents terminated the services of the applicant.
Dy.Inspector Gen.Of Police & Anr vs S.Samuthiram on 30 November, 2012
(2010)11SC C 455; K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh (2012)8 SCC 73, Deputy Inspector
General of Police & Anr. v. S. Sumuthiram (2013)1 SCC
598; Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh &
Anr. AIR 1995 SC 705 and Maharaj Krishan Bhatt & Anr.
v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (2008)9 SCC 24.
Chandigarh Administration vs Jagjit Singh on 10 January, 1995
(2010)11SC C 455; K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh (2012)8 SCC 73, Deputy Inspector
General of Police & Anr. v. S. Sumuthiram (2013)1 SCC
598; Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh &
Anr. AIR 1995 SC 705 and Maharaj Krishan Bhatt & Anr.
v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (2008)9 SCC 24.
C.B.S.E. Thr. Its Secretary vs Sushil Kumar on 9 October, 2018
In support of their case, the
respondent has cited the case of Delhi Administration
through its Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar
(1996)11SCC 605; Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of
Commerce (2006)10 SCC 5702; Fuljit Kaur etc. v. State of
Punjab etc.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Suresh Pathrella vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 19 October, 2006
In support of their case, the
respondent has cited the case of Delhi Administration
through its Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar
(1996)11SCC 605; Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of
Commerce (2006)10 SCC 5702; Fuljit Kaur etc. v. State of
Punjab etc.
K. Venkateshwarlu vs State Of A.P on 17 August, 2012
(2010)11SC C 455; K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh (2012)8 SCC 73, Deputy Inspector
General of Police & Anr. v. S. Sumuthiram (2013)1 SCC
598; Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh &
Anr. AIR 1995 SC 705 and Maharaj Krishan Bhatt & Anr.
v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (2008)9 SCC 24.
1