Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the punjab tax on lotteries act 2005 Court: central administrative tribunal cat delhi Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.045 seconds)

Jun 01 2012 (TRI)

S.i. Rajinder Singh Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Decided on : Jun-01-2012

..... retirement in one day. in this context, he placed his reliance on the judgments of honble supreme court in the matters of state of punjab versus ramjilal and others [(1971)-2-scr-550]; state of haryana and others versus rajindra sareen [(1972)-2-scr-452]; express newspapers pvt. ltd ..... ) suppl.3-scr-382]; union of india versus malti sharma [(2006)-9-scc-262]; union of india and another versus v. ramakrishnan and others [(2005)-8-scc-394]; and bahadursinh lakhubhai gohil versus jagdishbhai m. kamalia and others [(2004)-2-scc 65]. (ii) the second leg of his submission ..... and taking action as appropriate under the law, forcing the applicant to submit resignation and later on accept his voluntary retirement are not appreciable act. we would, therefore, leave the matter in the hands of the fourth respondent to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and take ..... apex court in bidya deb barma vs. district magistrate, tripura, agartala[air-1969-sc-323] considered section 3(3) of the prevention of detention act 1950 requiring district magistrate to report order of detention to state government 'forthwith' and analysed the meaning of 'forthwith'. though the facts are different ..... jharoda kalan where he was directly working under mr.virender singh the then additional commissioner of police. he stated that sh.virender singh did numerous acts which was probably indicative of mr.virender singh being desirous to get some financial benefits. understanding so he deposited rs.20,000/- in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 29 2012 (TRI)

Dr. Digambar Behera Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Decided on : Feb-29-2012

..... is not a mandatory methodology in all situations for purposes of validation of a selection process. 10.4.5 we have gone through the judgment of the punjab and haryana high court in dr. sudha suris case, cited on behalf of the applicant pressing the contention of alleged arbitrariness. in this case, the ..... vide no. gmch-lc/la-1-15(ii) dated 9.5.2008, has been closed as advised by the cvc vide their letter dt. 30.11.2005. in vigilance inquiry no.19/vig/c, a warning was issued to dr. raj bahadur vide letter dated 17.9.2010 and case closed. further, it ..... assessment of the merit of the candidates merits serious consideration. (d) the contention of the applicants learned counsel about there being no provisions in the act, rules or regulations for such a sub-delegation can be matched with the counter contention of there also not being any provision expressly barring evolving of ..... learned counsel would also emphasize that the essential point was to constitute the search and selection committee, with a composition meant to achieve the objectives of the act. as per the learned counsel, the selection committee comprising the eminent experts in the field and the highest government authorities could not be flawed on this ..... . (vi) in the absence of any challenge to the vires of article 22 of the act, articles 14 and 16 cannot be brought into play. 9.2 to reinforce the contention of arbitrariness, the decision of the punjab and haryana high court in dr. sudha suri vs union of india and ors in cwp .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //