Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
U.P. Government Through Collector, ... vs J.R. Bhatta on 6 May, 1955 cites

The State Of Bihar vs Abdul Majid on 11 February, 1954

There appears to be no justification therefore for the plaintiff not to have included the relief in question in the plaint as it was instituted on 2-1-1947. Even in this Court, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the -- 'State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (A)', on which the plaintiff-respondent relies, had been passed on 11-2-1954 and published in the April, 1954 issue of the All India Reporter, seven months before the present application for amendment was filed on 23-11-1954.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 125 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

The Secretary To The Board Of Revenue ... vs R.M.P.I.N.R.M. Alagappa Chettiar And ... on 17 November, 1936

-as -- Secretary of State v. I. M. Lair, 1945 FC 47 (AIR V32) (C) from which the said appeal to the Privy Council was taken, had been decided, long before the institution of the present suit, on 4-5-1945. The Federal Court had held that the proper remedy of the dismissed member of the Indian Civil Service was damages for wrongful dismissal for breach of statutory obligations imposed by Section 240(3), Government of India Act, 1935.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Shri Om Prakash Gupta vs The United Provinces on 6 November, 1950

The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent drew our attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court reported as -- 'Om Frakash v. United Provinces', 1951 All 205 (AIR V38) (F), decided on 6-11-1950, in which also it was held that in a suit against the Crown no right to sue for arrears of salary arises from an order of wrongful dismissal. Much before this Division Bench decision of this Court could have been published in the law reports, the present suit had been decided by the learned Civil Judge on 23-12-1950.
Allahabad High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Jai Ram vs Union Of India on 22 January, 1954

The impugned order, dated 27-3-1944 had therefore the effect of terminating the plaintiff's, appointment otherwise than upon his reaching the age fixed for superannuation. That being so, it lay upon the defendant-appellant to justify the passing of that order. It is true that the plaintiff had at his own request been allowed to proceed on leave preparatory to retirement, but it is open to a servant, who has expressed a desire to retire from service and applied to his superior officer to give him the requisite permission, to change his mind subsequently and ask for cancellation of the permission thus obtained, except that he cannot be allowed to do so after he has ceased to b(c) in service: 'Jai Ram v. Union of India', 1954 SC 584 (AIR V41) (G). The plaintiff respondent applied for being allowed to return to duty about three and a half years before his services would nave terminated on superannuation. He was therefore fully entitled to change his mind & to be allowed to resume his duties even though he had proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement. In these circumstances, it lay upon the defendant, as adverted to above, to justify the passing of the impugned order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 54 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document
1