Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 seconds)
Madhurendra Kumar Verma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 June, 2015 cites

Shankara Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd vs M. Prabhakar & Ors on 5 May, 2011

13. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, in his submission, has laid great emphasis on the failure, on the part of respondent Nos. 12 to 13, to file objection against their non selection within a reasonable time. He has submitted that they did not raise any objection after selection and appointment of the appellants herein either before the selection committee or before the statutory Appellate Authority immediately after the appellants were appointed. He has submitted that for the first time, they raised their grievance before the Appellate Authority after the matter was remanded by an order of this court dated 09.04.2012 passed in Patna High Court LPA No.1360 of 2014 dt. 24-06-2015 9/13 CWJC No. 194 of 2011. He, therefore, submits that the Appellate Authority, by the impugned order, dated 18.07.2012, had rightly refused to consider the case of respondents 2nd set, their claim being time barred. He has placed reliance upon Supreme Court's decisions, reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 929 (Alok Kumar v. the State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 607 (S. Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M Prabhakar & Ors) and (2012) 7 SCC 610 (Vijay Kumar Kaul & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors) in support of his submission that delay and laches is an important factor to be borne in mind, while deciding the dispute between the parties. He has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned single Judge committed an error, while interfering with the order of the Appellate Authority. He has submitted that the respondents 2nd set had not raised their claim before the appropriate forum/authority/ court within a reasonable time and their claims ought to have been refused as they were guilty of unexplained delay and laches. He has referred to Annexure-2 to the writ application, which has been described as "counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.8" in CWJC No. 194 of 2011. It seems from the said affidavit that Mukhiya of Matiaria Gram Panchayat was respondent No. 8 in CWJC No. 194 of 2011. However, the said counter affidavit appears not to have been filed by the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat, rather, by defeated Mukhiya of Patna High Court LPA No.1360 of 2014 dt. 24-06-2015 10/13 the Gram Panchayat. The said affidavit is said to have been filed by her as the matter related to her tenure as Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat in question. She has stated that it was a false statement that any force was used by the husband of present deponent over then Panchayat Secretary and his signature was obtained on appointment letters forcibly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 356 - H L Dattu - Full Document

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

13. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, in his submission, has laid great emphasis on the failure, on the part of respondent Nos. 12 to 13, to file objection against their non selection within a reasonable time. He has submitted that they did not raise any objection after selection and appointment of the appellants herein either before the selection committee or before the statutory Appellate Authority immediately after the appellants were appointed. He has submitted that for the first time, they raised their grievance before the Appellate Authority after the matter was remanded by an order of this court dated 09.04.2012 passed in Patna High Court LPA No.1360 of 2014 dt. 24-06-2015 9/13 CWJC No. 194 of 2011. He, therefore, submits that the Appellate Authority, by the impugned order, dated 18.07.2012, had rightly refused to consider the case of respondents 2nd set, their claim being time barred. He has placed reliance upon Supreme Court's decisions, reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 929 (Alok Kumar v. the State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 607 (S. Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M Prabhakar & Ors) and (2012) 7 SCC 610 (Vijay Kumar Kaul & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors) in support of his submission that delay and laches is an important factor to be borne in mind, while deciding the dispute between the parties. He has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned single Judge committed an error, while interfering with the order of the Appellate Authority. He has submitted that the respondents 2nd set had not raised their claim before the appropriate forum/authority/ court within a reasonable time and their claims ought to have been refused as they were guilty of unexplained delay and laches. He has referred to Annexure-2 to the writ application, which has been described as "counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.8" in CWJC No. 194 of 2011. It seems from the said affidavit that Mukhiya of Matiaria Gram Panchayat was respondent No. 8 in CWJC No. 194 of 2011. However, the said counter affidavit appears not to have been filed by the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat, rather, by defeated Mukhiya of Patna High Court LPA No.1360 of 2014 dt. 24-06-2015 10/13 the Gram Panchayat. The said affidavit is said to have been filed by her as the matter related to her tenure as Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat in question. She has stated that it was a false statement that any force was used by the husband of present deponent over then Panchayat Secretary and his signature was obtained on appointment letters forcibly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 237 - D Misra - Full Document

Alok Kumar Verma vs Bihar State Financial Corpn.&O on 18 April, 2009

13. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, in his submission, has laid great emphasis on the failure, on the part of respondent Nos. 12 to 13, to file objection against their non selection within a reasonable time. He has submitted that they did not raise any objection after selection and appointment of the appellants herein either before the selection committee or before the statutory Appellate Authority immediately after the appellants were appointed. He has submitted that for the first time, they raised their grievance before the Appellate Authority after the matter was remanded by an order of this court dated 09.04.2012 passed in Patna High Court LPA No.1360 of 2014 dt. 24-06-2015 9/13 CWJC No. 194 of 2011. He, therefore, submits that the Appellate Authority, by the impugned order, dated 18.07.2012, had rightly refused to consider the case of respondents 2nd set, their claim being time barred. He has placed reliance upon Supreme Court's decisions, reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 929 (Alok Kumar v. the State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 607 (S. Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M Prabhakar & Ors) and (2012) 7 SCC 610 (Vijay Kumar Kaul & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors) in support of his submission that delay and laches is an important factor to be borne in mind, while deciding the dispute between the parties. He has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned single Judge committed an error, while interfering with the order of the Appellate Authority. He has submitted that the respondents 2nd set had not raised their claim before the appropriate forum/authority/ court within a reasonable time and their claims ought to have been refused as they were guilty of unexplained delay and laches. He has referred to Annexure-2 to the writ application, which has been described as "counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.8" in CWJC No. 194 of 2011. It seems from the said affidavit that Mukhiya of Matiaria Gram Panchayat was respondent No. 8 in CWJC No. 194 of 2011. However, the said counter affidavit appears not to have been filed by the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat, rather, by defeated Mukhiya of Patna High Court LPA No.1360 of 2014 dt. 24-06-2015 10/13 the Gram Panchayat. The said affidavit is said to have been filed by her as the matter related to her tenure as Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat in question. She has stated that it was a false statement that any force was used by the husband of present deponent over then Panchayat Secretary and his signature was obtained on appointment letters forcibly.
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - A K Tripathi - Full Document

Madhurendra Kumar Verma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 April, 2012

9. CWJC No. 194 of 2011, preferred by these appellants was finally allowed by this Court by an order, dated 09.04.2012, quashing the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 08.12.2010, passed in Case No. 541 of 2010, on the sole ground that before Patna High Court LPA No.1360 of 2014 dt. 24-06-2015 6/13 passing the said order, which had civil consequences of removal of the appellants, no notice was given to them and, in the absence of any notice or right of hearing afforded to them, the order could not be sustained and, accordingly, it was set aside. This Court, by the said order dated 09.04.2012, passed in CWJC No. 194 of 2011 (Madhurendra Kumar Verma & Ors v. the State of Bihar & Ors), directed the Appellate Authority to fix appropriate date for hearing the parties and decide the matter afresh. The Court further observed that the Appellate Authority "would make endeavour to see that the adjudication is made with due co-operation of one and all within a period of three months thereafter". This is also not in dispute that respondents Nos. 12 and 13 herein had intervened before this Court in CWJC No. 194 of 2011 as, according to their case, in the selection held pursuant to the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 08.12.2010, in Case No. 541 of 2010, they were declared selected and appointment letters were issued in their favour.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - A K Tripathi - Full Document
1