Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)

The Railway Board And Ors. vs P.R. Subramaniyam And Ors. on 29 November, 1977

In this OA, the applicant did not challenge the Railway Board's Circulars dated 13.05.2011, 07.01.2013 and 05.02.2019 mandating the manner of preparing All India Integrated Seniority List and it is a settled principle of law in the case of Railway Board vs. P.R.Subramaniam, AIR 1978 SC 284 that the Railway Board Circulars carry the statutory force of law. The decision taken by the Railway Board is a matter of policy, which also has not been challenged in this OA. Besides, any interference in the matter, would have all India adverse repercussion. The All India 16 O.A.No. 260/00635 of 2021 Integrated Seniority List has been issued strictly in accordance with the said policy decision. Hence, we are of the considered view that this OA deserves to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 26 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Indu Shekhar Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 28 April, 2006

10. Another important aspect, which has been noticed is that, one of the prayers of the applicant in this OA is to direct the respondents to place him in Sl. No. 157 of the All India Integrated List, which prayer he did not press in course of hearing. Thus, going by the existing prayer of the OA, it establishes that allowing the present relief to the applicant, obviously, he will be placed above many of the persons, whose names have been placed above him in the All India Integrated Seniority list, but they have not been arraigned as parties and, therefore, in absence of the parties, who shall be affected in the matter of seniority, no relief can be granted is the law of the land vide Indu Shekhar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2006) 8 SCC 129, and Vijay Kumar Kaul and others v. Union of India and others, reported at (2012) 7 SCC 610).
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 187 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Vijay Kumar Kaul & Ors vs U.O.I. & Ors on 25 May, 2012

10. Another important aspect, which has been noticed is that, one of the prayers of the applicant in this OA is to direct the respondents to place him in Sl. No. 157 of the All India Integrated List, which prayer he did not press in course of hearing. Thus, going by the existing prayer of the OA, it establishes that allowing the present relief to the applicant, obviously, he will be placed above many of the persons, whose names have been placed above him in the All India Integrated Seniority list, but they have not been arraigned as parties and, therefore, in absence of the parties, who shall be affected in the matter of seniority, no relief can be granted is the law of the land vide Indu Shekhar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2006) 8 SCC 129, and Vijay Kumar Kaul and others v. Union of India and others, reported at (2012) 7 SCC 610).
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 237 - D Misra - Full Document

Supertech Ltd vs Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare ... on 31 August, 2021

It establishes that the applicant has made an indirect effort to get the relief, which he is not entitled to directly and, is thus barred by law that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly ["Quando aliquid prohibetur 17 O.A.No. 260/00635 of 2021 ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum"] (Vide Supertech Ltd. Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors, (2024) 1 SCC (L&S) 819).
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 102 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1