Unqualified - Judgment Search Results

B. Prasada Rao Vs. Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Kurnool and Others

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD285; 2001(1)ALT314; [2001(89)FLR518]

though he is not permitted to work and he is paid only subsistence allowance. The employer has an unqualified right to place an employee under suspension and this right is recognized in service jurisprudence and has received

Sanjoy Narayan Ed.In Chief Hindusthan and ors Vs. Son. High Court of A ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

the counsel appearing for the parties. The appellants have now filed an affidavit which is on record tendering unqualified apology for the publication of article in question in Hindustan Times on 20.09.2010 out of which contempt proceedings

Tamil Nadu P.G.T. Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2002SC72; 2001(1)SCALE60

Tribunal, the present appeals have been preferred. It is contended with vehement that prescribing a quota for the unqualified people like the condensed course teachers is grossly discriminatory and it prejudices the chance of promotion of the

Board of Trustees for Port of Calcutta and ors. Vs. Avijit Kumar Ray a ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2009(121)FLR399]; (2009)IILLJ535SC; 2008(15)SCALE450; (2009)1SCC743; 2009(3)SLJ132(SC):2009(2)LHSC908:2009AIRSCW687

dying in harness. The Solicitor General submitted that it is quite unreasonable to read this letter as an unqualified promise of recruitment of trained apprentices in all future times. The letter simply said the ex-trade apprentices would

Reliance Airport Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Airports Authority of India ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2006(2)CTLJ317(SC); JT2006(10)SC424; 2006(11)SCALE208; (2006)10SCC1

herein discretion is the absolute judge of the cause, and gives the rule.' (Callis. 112. 113)DISCRETION, FREE AND UNQUALIFIED, The 'free and unqualified discretion' to refuse or grant licences, which is given to justices by the Beer

K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: IV(2008)BC557(SC); 2008BusLR809(SC); JT2008(8)SC57; 2008(10)SCALE227; 2008AIRSCW6654; 2008(12)SCC481

had obliged the present appellant by canceling the process of 4th tender notice considering other bidders ineligible and unqualified. He, hence, filed Review Petition. In Review Petition, the Court was convinced that the grievance voiced by respondent

Gurdev Kaur and ors. Vs. Kaki and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2006SC1975; 2007(2)ALD20(SC); 2006(3)AWC2373(SC); 2007(3)BomCR869; (SCSuppl)2006(4)CHN1; 2007(1)CTC334; JT2006(5)SC72; 2007MPLJ1(SC); RLW2007(1)SC636; 2006(4)SCALE436; (2007)1SCC546

litigants have to be protected against too persistent a pursuit of their goal of perfectly satisfactory justice. An unqualified right of first appeal may be necessary for the satisfaction of the defeated litigant; but a wide right

Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2007SC3180; 2007(4)AWC3851(SC); 2008(1)BomCR454; 2007(10)SCALE391; (2007)7SCC555; 2007AIRSCW5782

sense of possible injustice. In such a case, the simple application of the words in their primary and unqualified sense is not always sufficient and will sometimes fail to carry out the manifest intention of law-giver as

H.B. Basavaraj (Dead) by Lrs. and anr. Vs. Canara Bank and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2010(1)KarLJ588; 2009(13)SCALE474; 2009AIRSCW7567

cause of action. But the whole case of estoppel fails if the statement is not sufficiently clear and unqualified.14. In the present case, the Bank has granted the loan for proper functioning of the trust and on

Syndicate Bank Vs. R. Veeranna and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2003SC2122; 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)1193; I(2003)BC376(SC); [2004]118CompCas22(SC); 2003(1)CTC508; [2003(1)JCR301(SC)]; 2003(5)KarLJ1; (2003)2SCC15; [2003]42SCL109(SC); [2002]SU

the judgment of this Court in Hiralal and Ors. v. Badkulal and Ors. : [1953]4SCR758 , that an unqualified acknowledgement of liability as in the present case by a party not only saves the period of limitation