Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Union Of India & Anr vs Sri Prahlad Kumar Roy & Ors on 30 April, 2010 cites

Gurdial Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 September, 2001

The learned Single Judge by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2001 SC 3883 held that the Union of India had taken a technical vies of the matter in dealing with the case and as such, the writ-application should be allowed. The points involved in this appeal were not raised in the said case nor was any observation made on those questions and, thus, the said decision cannot have any application to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 120 - Full Document

Mukund Lal Bhandari And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 May, 1993

In the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 2127, the Supreme Court held that there was no period of limitation for lodging a claim for freedom-fighter's pension and that the benefit should be 18 given from the date of application not any date earlier. We do not for a moment dispute the aforesaid proposition of law but unless the writ-petitioner is found to be entitled to get the pension, the said case cannot have any application to the fact of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 193 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Gokul Chandra Panja vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 September, 1998

In the case of Gokul Chandra Panja vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1999(1) CLT (HC) 241, a learned Single Judge of this Court in the facts of that case held that there was no record which would be held to be material on the question of the petitioner's political sufferings and in such circumstances, it was the personal knowledge certificate alone which had to be accepted. In our opinion, the said decision cannot help the writ-petitioner in the present case where even on the basis of averment made in the application itself, an absurd case of underground suffering had been made out which did not come within the purview of the SSS Scheme. Over and above, the certifier of the personal knowledge certificate did not take the responsibility of asserting that the petitioner did not apply for respite and such fact was based only on his belief.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - R Pal - Full Document
1