Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)
Dinesh Kumar Mishra vs Bhakra Beas Management Board And Others on 16 August, 2012 cites

M.P. Palanisamy & Ors vs A. Krishnan & Ors on 15 May, 2009

Learned Single Judge may have found justification in the appellant's grievance claiming promotion from the date when the erstwhile junior was promoted from the integrated seniority list; or that the 1994 Regulations could not have been changed merely on administrative instructions or by orders issued by the Chief Engineers of the respective wings but the appellant was non suited on delay, laches and operation of bar of period of limitation. In a matter of promotion based on seniority, the delay of 7 or 9 years can be regarded as fatal. Learned Single Judge has relied upon M.P. Palanisamy v. A. Krishnan 2009 (6) SCC 428 and K.A. Abdul Majeed v. State of Kerala 2001(6) SCC 292 to deny relief to the appellant on ground of delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 42 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

K.A. Abdul Majeed vs The State Of Kerala & Others on 7 August, 2001

Learned Single Judge may have found justification in the appellant's grievance claiming promotion from the date when the erstwhile junior was promoted from the integrated seniority list; or that the 1994 Regulations could not have been changed merely on administrative instructions or by orders issued by the Chief Engineers of the respective wings but the appellant was non suited on delay, laches and operation of bar of period of limitation. In a matter of promotion based on seniority, the delay of 7 or 9 years can be regarded as fatal. Learned Single Judge has relied upon M.P. Palanisamy v. A. Krishnan 2009 (6) SCC 428 and K.A. Abdul Majeed v. State of Kerala 2001(6) SCC 292 to deny relief to the appellant on ground of delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

S.S. Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 1989

We have heard Mr. J.S. Maanipur for the appellant at some length but are unable to be persuaded by him to examine the merits of the case for possible violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the face of bar of limitation. Had the petitioner brought a Civil Suit in 2009 with prayers similar to the ones made in the present case, it would have been barred by limitation. Still further, successive representations have been held not to create a cause of action for which principle reference may be had to S.S. Rathore vs. State of M.P. AIR 1990 SC 10. Delay in the present case would not revive the cause of action and cause injury to the 4th respondent L.P.A. No.400 of 2012 -4- by unsettling a position which had remained settled for at least 7 years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 622 - M Rangnath - Full Document
1