Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.16 seconds)
Basharat Bashir Teeli vs State And Ors on 22 October, 2018 cites

Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008

11. Obviously, therefore, it cannot be said that the rules of the game were changed by the Commission when the game was being played or that the game had been played. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hemani Malhotrra v High Court of Delhi, cited at the Bar and heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case and argument, thus, is not at all attracted to the facts of the case, being
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 327 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Akash Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 6 July, 2018

6|Page wholly distinguishable. On the other hand, the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Akash Kumar v State, relying on various judgments of the Supreme Court mentioned therein, in its paragraph 18, holds that the general rule is that the vacancies, which exist on the date of amendment of Rules have to be filled up in accordance with the Rules, as they stood prior to amendment; provided the amendment is not retrospective. This judgment clearly fits the bill herein, inasmuch as the amendment in Rule 51 in the instant case was, admittedly, made operative retrospectively from a date exterior to the notification of the vacancies. This fact wholly demolishes the case of the petitioner and the argument put forward on his behalf.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1