Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.56 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 21 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009
10. We do not see any distinguished feature to make a
departure from the view taken by the coordinate Bench of the
Tribunal, upheld by the concerned Hon'ble High Court, so as to
interfere in the impugned orders notwithstanding the provision
under Section 21 of the AT Act, 1985 and the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.K.Sarkar (supra) and
Hon'ble High Court in the case of Dr. V.Sraman (supra). Hence,
we hold that this OA deserves to be dismissed.
S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary ... on 14 December, 1999
"At the outset, we must express our serious
dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a
coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in
effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate
Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all
principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent
Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier
view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same
tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the
matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of
opinion between the two coordinate Benches on the
same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the
latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier
Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the
said judgment against all known rules of precedents.
Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the
foundation of administration of justice under our
system. This is a fundamental principle which every
Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for
consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to
public confidence in our judicial system. This Court
has laid down time and again precedent law must be
followed by all concerned; deviation from the same
should be only on a procedure known to law. A
subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law
made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.08
16:38:27 +05'30'
12 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018
Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to
declaration of law made by another Bench."
S.V.Raman vs Union Of India on 26 February, 2014
10. We do not see any distinguished feature to make a
departure from the view taken by the coordinate Bench of the
Tribunal, upheld by the concerned Hon'ble High Court, so as to
interfere in the impugned orders notwithstanding the provision
under Section 21 of the AT Act, 1985 and the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.K.Sarkar (supra) and
Hon'ble High Court in the case of Dr. V.Sraman (supra). Hence,
we hold that this OA deserves to be dismissed.
Suresh Sankhla vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 September, 2021
7. In view of the facts and law discussed above, we are of the
considered opinion that the challenge of the applicant to the
orders dated 09.12.2013 and 18.04.2018 being grossly barred by
limitation has no legs to stand. Also, in the case of Suresh
Sankhla Vs UOI & Ors [W.P.(C) No. 5600/2018], the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi vide order dated 10.10.2025 held as under:
The State Of Orissa vs Bhagaban Mohanty (Dead) Through Lrs. on 18 December, 2019
6. It is also noted that in one case, non-consideration of
representation submitted seeking belated claim was disposed of
by the Learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal with direction to
dispose of the representation and, in consideration of such order,
the authority rejected the representation, which he again
RAVI KUMAR
2026.05.08
16:38:27 +05'30'
9 O.A.No. 260/00249 of 2018
challenged, and, the learned Tribunal granted him the relief,
which was also upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. The
said order was challenged by the State of Orissa before the
Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the
order of the Hon'ble High Court by holding that the relevant
original application of the individual being hopelessly barred by
limitation, the same should not have been entertained by the
Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court clearly fell in error in not
interdicting the judgment and order under challenge before it
vide order dated 03.03.2025 in Civil Appeal No. ......of 2025
[arising out of SLP(C) No. 26965 of 2019- The State of Orissa Vs
Bhagaban Mohanty (Dead)].
1