Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.95 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Bombay vs F.A.Abraham on 12 December, 1961
This Court's judgment in Sughar Singh's case (supra)
shows that it was only following the law on Article 311(2)
of the Constitution as laid down repeatedly earlier by this
Court. It specifically referred to
546
the following cases: Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of
India(1); State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sukh Rai Bahadur(2);
State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das(3); B. C. Lacy v. State
of Bihar(4); Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India(5); A. G.
Benjamin v. Union of India(6); Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State
of Madhya Pradesh(7); Union of India v. Gajendra Singh(8);
Divisional Personnel Officer v. Raghavendrachar (supra);
Union of India v. Jaswan Ram (9); Madhav v. State of
Mysore(10); State of Bombay v. Abraham (supra),.
Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs The Union Of India on 23 October, 1963
We have tried to gather, from such materials on the
record of the case before us as have been made available to
us by the parties, the spirit and substance", to use the
expressions employed by this Court in Champaklal's case e
(supra), of the action taken against the contest-
Divisional Personnel Officer, Souther ... vs S.Raghavendrachar on 16 December, 1965
This Court's judgment in Sughar Singh's case (supra)
shows that it was only following the law on Article 311(2)
of the Constitution as laid down repeatedly earlier by this
Court. It specifically referred to
546
the following cases: Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of
India(1); State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sukh Rai Bahadur(2);
State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das(3); B. C. Lacy v. State
of Bihar(4); Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India(5); A. G.
Benjamin v. Union of India(6); Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State
of Madhya Pradesh(7); Union of India v. Gajendra Singh(8);
Divisional Personnel Officer v. Raghavendrachar (supra);
Union of India v. Jaswan Ram (9); Madhav v. State of
Mysore(10); State of Bombay v. Abraham (supra),.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
C.T. Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 7 January, 1972
This Court's judgment in Sughar Singh's case (supra)
shows that it was only following the law on Article 311(2)
of the Constitution as laid down repeatedly earlier by this
Court. It specifically referred to
546
the following cases: Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of
India(1); State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sukh Rai Bahadur(2);
State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das(3); B. C. Lacy v. State
of Bihar(4); Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India(5); A. G.
Benjamin v. Union of India(6); Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State
of Madhya Pradesh(7); Union of India v. Gajendra Singh(8);
Divisional Personnel Officer v. Raghavendrachar (supra);
Union of India v. Jaswan Ram (9); Madhav v. State of
Mysore(10); State of Bombay v. Abraham (supra),.
The State Of Orissa And Another vs Ram Narayan Das on 8 September, 1960
This Court's judgment in Sughar Singh's case (supra)
shows that it was only following the law on Article 311(2)
of the Constitution as laid down repeatedly earlier by this
Court. It specifically referred to
546
the following cases: Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of
India(1); State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sukh Rai Bahadur(2);
State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das(3); B. C. Lacy v. State
of Bihar(4); Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India(5); A. G.
Benjamin v. Union of India(6); Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State
of Madhya Pradesh(7); Union of India v. Gajendra Singh(8);
Divisional Personnel Officer v. Raghavendrachar (supra);
Union of India v. Jaswan Ram (9); Madhav v. State of
Mysore(10); State of Bombay v. Abraham (supra),.