Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.03 seconds)The State Of Punjab vs Sodhi Sukhdev Singh on 15 November, 1960
In this connection we may quote the following from the judgment of this Court in the State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh AIR 1961 SC 493 at p. 512:
State Of Punjab vs Amar Singh Harika on 6 January, 1966
17. A Five Judges Bench of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika, (supra) in a question of communication of an order of dismissal as a ratio decidendi in so far as communication is concerned, held as follows:
Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962
In another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395 on the question of 'communication', the following observations have been made:
Islamic Academy Of Education And ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 14 August, 2003
In a Constitution Bench's decision of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka 2003(6) SCC 697, the Apex Court has held as follows:
Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission And Ors on 14 July, 2003
In Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission 2003(11) SCC 584 : 2004(1) SLJ 28 (SC), the Apex Court ruled that Courts below should not place reliance on decision without discussing the factual situation in which it fits with the fact situation of the decision relied upon. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statute. Every word of thejudgment is not to be given a literal meaning and no word is to be ignored unlike a statute. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case held as under:
Bharathidasan University & Anr vs All India Council For Technical ... on 24 September, 2001
In Bhamthidasan University v. All India Councilfor Technical Education 2001(8) SCC 676, the Apex Court ruled as under:
Dadi Jagannadham vs Jammulu Ramulu & Ors on 23 August, 2001
In the matter of interpretation, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu 2001(7) SCC 7, observed as under:
The All India Council For Technical Education Act, 1987
State Of West Bengal Etc. vs M.R. Mondal And Anr. on 3 September, 2001
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that as three months' notice period had expired on 31.08.2005, till then neither the order of suspension was validly communicated nor received by the applicant, he is deemed to be voluntary retired and, therefore, permission to retire cannot be withheld in view of Rule 48(1)(a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Learned Counsel, relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. M.R. Mondal 2001(8) SCC 443, stated that in administrative action Government orders and memoranda, not communicated to the concerned, have no force, effect or authority.