Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)
Khem Chand Son Of Shri Dwarika Prasad vs The State Of U.P. Through Secretary ... on 7 February, 2006 cites

Ashika Prasad Shukla vs District Inspector Of Schools, ... on 18 August, 1998

21. The contention of the District Inspector of Schools that issuance of a letter of appointment before the approval was actually granted is a invalid letter of appointment and, therefore, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner is a totally incorrect approach. The appointment takes effect only after an approval is granted and this issue stands settled in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and Ors. (11998) 3 UPLBEC 1722 (Paragraph 16). The finding recorded by the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, on this point is also incorrect and is set aside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 44 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Kani Ram And Anr vs Smt. Kazani And Ors on 19 April, 1972

23. The last issue, which deserves to be addressed, is the manner in which the District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to re-determine the issues, which had already attained finality in the judgment dated 25.4.2005. The Apex Court in the case of Kani Ram and Anr. v. Smt. Kazani and Ors. , while relying on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mathura Prasad , has held that a mixed question of law and fact determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties could not be questioned in a subsequent proceeding between them, The principle of res-judicata as contained in Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code were reiterated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - A N Grover - Full Document

Forward Construction Co. & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri & Ors. ... on 26 November, 1985

The aforesaid view was further explained in the context of explanation 6 of Section 11 of CPC in the case of Forward Construction Co. and Ors. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri and Ors. (1986) 1 SCC 100. Applying the aforesaid principles, it is evident that most of the issues, which have been sought to be re-determined by the District Inspector of Schools, had already attained finality in the judgment dated 25.4.2005 and it was not open to the District Inspector of Schools to have virtually reopened the same by expressing his own understanding and opinion about the judgment of this Court dated 25.4.2005. The District Inspector of Schools had either to simply follow the judgment of this Court on 25.4.2005 and in case he fell that the issues were not correctly decided, then the only course open was to file an appeal against the said judgment. No appeal was filed against the judgment dated 25.4.2005 and, as such, it had attained finality. The District Inspector of Schools completely lacks understanding on the aforesaid position of law and he has, therefore, grossly erred by proceeding to re-determine the issues which already stood at rest in the judgment elated 25.4.2005. The approach of the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, cannot be appreciated. Needless to say that res-judicata applies at different stages of the same proceedings . The judgment of remand dated 25.4.2005 attached finality to the issues already decided therein and which was not put in jeopardy any further. It is well settled that even a wrong judgment requires setting aside and its binding effect cannot be taken away when it has been rendered between the same parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 278 - R B Misra - Full Document
1