Second Appeal - Whether defendant can be heard at admission stage

2010 (2) SCC 239

 

The court has to formulate substantial question of law while admitting the appeal and it is the duty of the court to hear the defendant/respondent .

Petition at the instance of rival / competitor is not maintainable

Dinesh Prasad Seth 2003 6 AWC5547
Om Saran v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandausi, Moradabad MANU/UP/0064/1995 : AIR 1995 All 315;
Northern Plastic Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Film Mfg. Co. Ltd.. MANU/SC/1151/1997 : JT 1997 (3) (SC) 101
Mithlesh Garg v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0075/1992 : AIR 1992 SC 443
Dharam Raj v. State of UP, 2010 2 AWC1878

 

cut off date

 

·         In the case of Shankar K. Mandal and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0330/2003: [2003]3SCR796: AIR 2003 SC 4043 , the Hon'ble Apex Court also accepted the above settled principle that (i) The cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules, (ii) if there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications. (iii) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority.

 

 

·         U.P. Public Service Commission vs Alpana 1994 SCC (2) 723

The same view was reiterated in M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka (2003) 7 SCC 517 and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54. Therefore, the Full Bench of the High Court rightly held that a candidate who does not possess driving licence on the last date fixed for submission of the application is not eligible to be considered for selection.

Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan State Public Service Commission, AIR2011SC3547

Recall of orders passed by consent (especially Order 23)

AIR2003All337, 2003 4 AWC2809, III(2003)BC388, (2003)2UPLBEC1366

consequences of non-compliance with conditions in the interim order

Nanak Chand v. Goswami Preetam Lal MANU/UP/0042/1972 : AIR 1972 All. 166, wherein the Court was dealing with the effect ofnon-compliance with a conditional order and the Court held that in such a situation the only result would be one of automatic dismissal. His submission was that since the appeal Court allowed the appeal and laid down certain condition which the second Respondent has not complied with, that the order must be treated as having been automatically vacated. A more or less similar position has been laid down by the Supreme Court in two subsequent decisions in the case of Smt. Ram Pyari and Ors. v. Jagdish Lal MANU/SC/0288/1992 : AIR 1992 SC 1537 and MANU/SC/0078/1993 : AIR 1993 SC 352.


Also see: 2011(2) RCR(Rent)212: MANU/UP/3013/2011

Pleadings are to be liberally construed

AIR2006SC779, 2006(1)ALD73(SC), 2005(5)CTC52, JT2005(8)SC361, 2006 1 RD60, RLW2006(2)SC969, (2005)7SCC653, [2005]Supp(3)SCR255

Retrospective Effect

Unless stated - repeal not to have retrospective effect

 

MRF Limited

JT (2010) 1 SC 206

AIR 1951 All 485 (Full Bench)

AIR 1955 NUC (All)

AIR 1993 SC 1188\

[2004]135STC503(Bom) (WIPRO LIMITED)