Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
P I Thankappan vs The Assistant Registrar Income Tax ... on 25 May, 2022 cites

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014

"8. Therefore, the ratio of judgment rendered in case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) would be applicable. To conclude, it is observed that the undertaking given by an employee cannot be used uniformly when the recovery of dues is done after his retirement or otherwise there cannot be a straight jacket formula for such recovery. Rather, the execution of undertaking, the time when it was executed would be relevant factors to evaluate whether the State can be allowed to act upon on such undertaking. In the facts of this case, the undertaking given by the petitioner in the year 2017 cannot be allowed to stand to recover the dues for the payment made from 1986 to 2013."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 17 August, 2012

Further, the pension sanctioning -9- authorities/disbursing authorities are also duty bound to recover any amount received by the applicant without an authority of law, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of Utharakhand, 2012 (8) SCC 417. Other decisions cited and relied on by the applicant are, therefore, out of context and not applicable to the factual matrix of the case. It is submitted that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has also issued orders vide Annexure R-4(e) that recovery from the pensioners may be effected as per the procedure laid down.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1165 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Rajendra Prasad Pandey And 26 Others vs State Of U.P. And 31 Others on 25 January, 2017

In W.P.Nos.5937/2016 & 13828/2016 - Rajendra Prasad Pandey v. the State of M.P & Ors. and Mohd. Shahid v. State of M.P & Ors., the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2018, after elaborately discussing the judgment of the Jagdev Singh (supra), had noted in that matter that the undertaking said to be given was in a proforma that simply mentions refund of over payments if any made on account of incorrect fixation. It was found that the undertaking is a part of proforma and it is well known that the persons belonging to lower posts put signatures on such undertakings without application of mind.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 13 - D B Bhosale - Full Document

S S Guraya vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 March, 2017

11. Learned counsel for the applicant also points out that similarly, in a case relating to the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in the matter of S.S.Guraya vs. Union of India & Ors., in C.W.P.No.23915/2015, decided on 17.03.2017, it was found that the undertaking given in that matter was general in nature and not specific. It was found that there was no evidence produced on record or pointed out in the letter dated 15.03.2017 in that matter that the petitioner had given an undertaking in the year 1985 or at any time that excess payments credited into pensioner account can be recovered by the bank.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - R N Raina - Full Document

Md Shahid Anwar vs Union Of India And Ors. on 7 July, 2017

In W.P.Nos.5937/2016 & 13828/2016 - Rajendra Prasad Pandey v. the State of M.P & Ors. and Mohd. Shahid v. State of M.P & Ors., the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 06.02.2018, after elaborately discussing the judgment of the Jagdev Singh (supra), had noted in that matter that the undertaking said to be given was in a proforma that simply mentions refund of over payments if any made on account of incorrect fixation. It was found that the undertaking is a part of proforma and it is well known that the persons belonging to lower posts put signatures on such undertakings without application of mind.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1