Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Defendent: p d aggarwal · Page 1 of about 86 results (0.321 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Jul 11 1997

S.S. Bola and Others Vs. B.D. Sardana and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-11-1997

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 309, 3; Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Buildings and Roads Branch), (Public Health Branch) Rules, 1960 - Rule 3(2);

Reported in : AIR1997SC3127; JT1997(6)SC637; 1997(5)SCALE90; (1997)8SCC522; [1997]Supp2SCR507

K. RAMASWAMY, J. (dissenting) 1. Application/s for impleadment allowed. 2. These appeals and transfer cases are wrapped up of complex facts interwoven with diverse principles in service jurisprudence, compounded by legislative intervention impinging upon judicial review...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 26 1994

A.S. Pathania and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-26-1994

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16

Reported in : 1994IIIAD(Delhi)872; 55(1994)DLT468; 1994(30)DRJ362; 1994LabIC2520

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Here is yet another writ petition making a grievance of the promotions made and the seniority fixed.(2) First, the bird eye view of the facts. By order dated June 12, 1980 the...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 21 2002

Y. Markandeyudu and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-21-2002

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 16(1), 226, 309, 311 and 312; Andhra Pradesh Treasury and Accounts Subordinate Service Rules - Rule 6; Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996

Reported in : 2002(2)ALD362; 2002(2)ALT1

Advocate for Respondent : Additional Adv. General and ;M. Surender Rao, Adv.

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The subject matter that arises for consideration in both these writ petitions is one and the same and, therefore, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. The petitioners herein...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Dec 12 2007

Sanjay Vishwakarma @ Sanjay Kumar and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand ...

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Dec-12-2007

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21

Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR1466; [2008(2)JCR388(Jhr)]

Advocate for Respondent : S. Ranjan, J.C. to G.P.II

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the respondents to consider the petitioners' candidature for regular appointment, who had been working on daily wage basis for several...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 25 2009

Anil Kumar B.P. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Feb-25-2009

Subject : Service

Acts : Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 - Rules 2(12), 3, 5, 7, 27, 88 and 110B; Kerala Financial Code - Rule 69

Reported in : 2009(2)KLJ38

Advocate for Respondent : P. Nandakumar, Adv. and; Alexander Thomas, S.C.,; Kalees

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.O.P. No. 34203/2002 & W.P. (C) Nos. 5929/08. S935/08, 5950/08, 5998/08. 6045/08. 23362/08 & 30902/081. In all these writ petitions, the challenge is against the order passed by the Government dated 13-02-2008 adopting...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 24 1993

Nanjappa Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-24-1993

Subject : Service

Acts : Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Cadre and Recruitment Regulations - Regulation 15

Reported in : ILR1993KAR3531

Advocate for Respondent : K. Lakshminarayana Rao, Adv.

ORDERHanumanthappa, J. 1. Since the facts are similar and the points to be considered being common, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The point for consideration in these Writ Petitions...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 12 1999

ishwar Chandra Garg Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-12-1999

Subject : Service

Reported in : 2000(2)AWC1362

Advocate for Respondent : C.S.C.

S.H.A. Raza and Kamal Kishore, JJ.1. It is well-settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. D. Agarwal v. State of U. P., 1987 (3) SCC 622. that the seniority of Assistant Engineer...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 16 1998

Keshav Deo and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-16-1998

Subject : Service

Acts : Uttar Pradesh Services of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch), Class-II Rules, 1936 - Rules 5, 6, 12 and 23; Utter Pradesh Services of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch), Class-II (Amendment) Rules, 1936; Utter Pradesh Services of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch), Class-II (Amendment) Rules, 1971

Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)478; AIR1999SC44; JT1998(7)SC216; 1998LabIC3554; 1998(5)SCALE621; (1999)1SCC280; [1998]Supp2SCR343; (1999)1UPLBEC12

M. Srinivasan, J.1. The first appellant was appointed as an Overseer (re-designated as Junior Engineer) on adhoc basis in Public Works Department (for short P.W.D), State of U.P. on 17.7.1970 and was approved by the Public...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 13 1998

Vijaya Kumar Shrotriya Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-13-1998

Subject : Service

Reported in : JT1998(1)SC692; (1998)IIIMLJ22(SC); 1998(1)SCALE598; (1998)3SCC397; [1998]1SCR883; (1998)1UPLBEC700

Advocate for Respondent : Alka Aggarwal, ; R.K. Singh and ; R.B. Misra, Advs.

ORDER1. The short question raised is, whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of his earlier service rendered in the Irrigation Department for his promotion and seniority in the Public Works Department (PWD). The foundation...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 04 2001

Faridabad Iron and Steel Traders Association Vs. Union of India and or ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-04-2001

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Rules, 2001 - Rules 3.11, 9, 31 and 52AA(5)

Reported in : 95(2001)DLT763; 2002(61)DRJ445; 2002(80)ECC59; 2002(140)ELT378(Del)

Advocate for Respondent : Manmohan and ; Manish, Advs.

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The virus of Rule 3.11 as contained in Central Excise Manual, 2001-02 which is questioned in this writ petition, is in the following terms:'3.11 Provision has been made for permitting the CENVAT credit...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial