Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.90 seconds)
Mr Vinod Kumar Soran vs Delhi Publice School And Ors on 21 January, 2021 cites

Salil Dutta vs T.M. And M.C. Private Ltd on 5 February, 1993

4. Though we do not find any error in the impugned orders inasmuch as litigants, when appear before the Court through lawyers are bound by the actions including decisions taken on the spot by the lawyers, and without taking any proceeding against the Advocate, cannot, merely by engaging a new Advocate, take the plea of being not bound by the decision of the action of the earlier lawyer. Reference if any in this regard may be made to Salil Dutta v. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 185, Sukhdev Raj Arora v. M.K. Bhargava MANU/DE/2756/2010 [SLP (C) No. 4354/2010 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 19th February, 2010], Mohit v. Ram Pyari MANU/DE/0288/2016 and Ashwani Sharma v. Kanta Sharma MANU/DE/0160/2017 [RFA(OS) 12/2017 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 9th March, 2017].
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 147 - B P Reddy - Full Document

M/S Gautam Associates vs Food Corporation Of India on 29 July, 2009

7. Thus this is also a case of successive Advocates, by blaming the earlier Advocate and without even checking with the earlier Advocate, seeking to wriggle out of the outcome of the hearings in the presence of the earlier Advocate and which trend cannot be permitted, inasmuch as the LPA 26/2021 Page 3 of 11 same results in abuse of the process of the Court. Reference, if any required, in this regard can be made to Rabi Shanker Sen Gupta v. ITDC MANU/DE/8419/2007, Gautam Associates v. Food Corporation of India 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2198, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Delhi v. Prakash & Co. Construction Company (2013) 197 DLT 772, Harjinder Pal Singh v. Ravinder Singh Anand 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1045, Mohd. Hasan v. Farooq @ Fakhruddin 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3490, Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. Gyanji Choudhary 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5098, Tirupati Alkalies Pvt. Ltd. v Vinod Trivedi MANU/DE/5281/2017 and order dated 5th January, 2021 in Test Cas.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 17 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, Delhi vs M/S Prakash & Co Construction Company on 22 January, 2013

7. Thus this is also a case of successive Advocates, by blaming the earlier Advocate and without even checking with the earlier Advocate, seeking to wriggle out of the outcome of the hearings in the presence of the earlier Advocate and which trend cannot be permitted, inasmuch as the LPA 26/2021 Page 3 of 11 same results in abuse of the process of the Court. Reference, if any required, in this regard can be made to Rabi Shanker Sen Gupta v. ITDC MANU/DE/8419/2007, Gautam Associates v. Food Corporation of India 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2198, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Delhi v. Prakash & Co. Construction Company (2013) 197 DLT 772, Harjinder Pal Singh v. Ravinder Singh Anand 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1045, Mohd. Hasan v. Farooq @ Fakhruddin 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3490, Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. Gyanji Choudhary 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5098, Tirupati Alkalies Pvt. Ltd. v Vinod Trivedi MANU/DE/5281/2017 and order dated 5th January, 2021 in Test Cas.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - M Singh - Full Document

Shashi Kohli vs Director Of Education And Anr on 29 April, 2011

16. We find the Division Bench of this Court in Shashi Kohli Vs. Director of Education 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1848 (DB) to have held (a) that unnecessary interference with the management and functioning of unaided schools is not permissible; (b) the notifications aforesaid only enable the schools to re-employee the teachers and cannot be treated as conferring any rights on the teachers to continue in employment till the age of 62 years; (c) the schools cannot be compelled to retain the teachers who inspite of long span are found not to be the best in the field, for another two years; (d) the said notifications ought to be read as incentives to the teachers for improving their performance if desirous of availing the extension so allowed to the schools; (e) if the notifications are to be read as conferring a right to the teachers, the same is likely to affect the standards LPA 26/2021 Page 8 of 11 of teaching and which ought not to be encouraged; (f) the benefit of notifications is intended for those who have the potential for continued useful service to the institution; (g) non-grant of re-employment does not cast any stigma; and, (h) the notifications are not intended to force upon the educational institutions, teachers who are worthless and who have lost their utility and who are standing in the way of fresh blood being inducted into the institution.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 27 - R Sharma - Full Document

Harjinder Pal Singh vs Ravinder Singh Anand on 13 March, 2013

7. Thus this is also a case of successive Advocates, by blaming the earlier Advocate and without even checking with the earlier Advocate, seeking to wriggle out of the outcome of the hearings in the presence of the earlier Advocate and which trend cannot be permitted, inasmuch as the LPA 26/2021 Page 3 of 11 same results in abuse of the process of the Court. Reference, if any required, in this regard can be made to Rabi Shanker Sen Gupta v. ITDC MANU/DE/8419/2007, Gautam Associates v. Food Corporation of India 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2198, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Delhi v. Prakash & Co. Construction Company (2013) 197 DLT 772, Harjinder Pal Singh v. Ravinder Singh Anand 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1045, Mohd. Hasan v. Farooq @ Fakhruddin 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3490, Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. v. Gyanji Choudhary 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5098, Tirupati Alkalies Pvt. Ltd. v Vinod Trivedi MANU/DE/5281/2017 and order dated 5th January, 2021 in Test Cas.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Wg. Cd. Sanjay Kamra vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 May, 2018

No. 54/2014 titled Sanjay Kalra v. State, where it has been inter alia held that gone are the days when litigants were illiterates and were solely dependent upon their Advocates and the Advocates not so professional. Today, the Advocates, especially in this capital city of the country, are thorough professionals and if such practice is to be continued, no litigation will ever come to an end.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1