Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.64 seconds)Section 35A in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ram Narain Arora vs Asha Rani & Ors on 31 August, 1998
5. It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. [Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181; Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Chitra Kumari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237 and State of UP. and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC 1298]
Smt. Chitra Kumari Etc. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 February, 2001
5. It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. [Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181; Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Chitra Kumari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237 and State of UP. and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC 1298]
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors on 20 March, 2001
5. It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. [Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181; Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Chitra Kumari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237 and State of UP. and Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC 1298]
M/S. Atul Castings Ltd vs Bawa Gurvachan Singh on 20 April, 2001
In Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1684, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
Vithal N. Shetti And Anr vs Prakash N. Rudrakar And Ors on 20 November, 2002
7. Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti and Anr. v. Prakash N. Rudrakar and Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18.
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr vs Kaushal Kishore Shukla on 11 January, 1991
U.P Public Service Tribunal and Ors., JT 1994 (2) SC M; Madhya Pradesh Hasth Shilp Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Pevendra Kumar Jain and Anr., (1995) 1 SCC 638; and Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right.
Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
10. In a case like the instant the Court has to be satisfied as what is the legally justiciable right of the petitioner which had been infringed and for which the petitioner can resort to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in Purshotam Lal Dingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36, has held that "A person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier" and further held that "a Government servant holding a post temporarily docs not have any right to hold the said post".
Commissioner, Food And Civil Supplies vs Prakash C. Saxena on 5 May, 1994
11. A temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. Similarly, in Triveni Shanker Saxena v. Stale of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 496; Commissioner of Food and Supply v. Prakash Chandra Saxena, (1994) 5 SCC 177; Ram Chandra Tripathiv.