Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)A. Janardhana vs Union Of India And Others on 26 April, 1983
In this regard we are supported by the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of (i) A. Janardhana v. Union of India, ; (i) State of U.P. and Anr. v. Ram Gopal Shukla 1981 (2) SLR page 3 and (iii) The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secundrabad and Anr. v. A.V.R. Siddhanti and Ors. 1974 (1) SLR 597. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court we find that non impleading of each and every Assistant or Senior Assistants was not necessary nor fatal to the writ petition.
State Of U.P. And Another vs V. Ram Gopal Shukla on 10 April, 1981
In this regard we are supported by the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of (i) A. Janardhana v. Union of India, ; (i) State of U.P. and Anr. v. Ram Gopal Shukla 1981 (2) SLR page 3 and (iii) The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secundrabad and Anr. v. A.V.R. Siddhanti and Ors. 1974 (1) SLR 597. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court we find that non impleading of each and every Assistant or Senior Assistants was not necessary nor fatal to the writ petition.
The General Manager, South Central ... vs A.V.R. Siddhanti And Ors. on 1 September, 1971
In this regard we are supported by the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of (i) A. Janardhana v. Union of India, ; (i) State of U.P. and Anr. v. Ram Gopal Shukla 1981 (2) SLR page 3 and (iii) The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secundrabad and Anr. v. A.V.R. Siddhanti and Ors. 1974 (1) SLR 597. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court we find that non impleading of each and every Assistant or Senior Assistants was not necessary nor fatal to the writ petition.
1