Back
G.T.NANAVATI, S.C.AGRAWAL
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
V. K. Bhaskar – Respondent
ORDER
1. The respondent was employed as Upper Division Clerk in the Delhi Administration. He was prosecuted for offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 477-A IPC and Section 5(1) (c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge, Jalandhar, by judgment dated 17-5-1985 convicted the respondent for the said offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 500 and on default in the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The respondent has filed an appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against his conviction and sentence for the said offences under the said judgment dated 17-5-1985. During the pendency of the said appeal, an order dated 20-11 - 1986 was passed by the Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle No. V (DA), New Delhi, whereby the respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 22-11-1986. The said order was passed under Rule 19(i) of the Central Ci
2. The order of dismissal reads as under :
"Public Works Department (Delhi Admn.) No. 2(1) /86-PWDCV (DA) /EII/76 15-32 dated the 20-11-1986 OFFICE ORDER Whereas Shri Vinod
None of the case laws explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the provided excerpts. There are no direct references such as "overruled," "reversed," or "disapproved" in the snippets. However, multiple references to the case "Union of India v. V.K. Bhaskar, (1997) 11 SCC 383" suggest it is a frequently cited precedent, which may imply its continued authority unless otherwise noted. Without explicit language indicating overruled or reversed treatment, we cannot definitively categorize any case as bad law solely from this list.
[Followed]
Several entries mention that the case "Union of India v. V.K. Bhaskar, (1997) 11 SCC 383" was relied upon or cited in subsequent judgments, such as in <01500035232>, <01500036432>, <02200018522>, <01300029502>, <01300029343>, <01300035375>, <01900020860>. This indicates that this case has been treated as authoritative and followed in later decisions.
Other cases, like <01700052501> and <02500104870>, refer to the same case in the context of legal principles, further supporting its status as good law.
[Distinguished or Referenced]
Several references, such as <02300025422>, <02300025281>, and <02300000509>, mention the case in the context of discussing the scope of constitutional provisions or other legal principles, which suggests the case is used as a reference point or authority, but not necessarily distinguished or criticized.
[Legal principles cited]
Multiple entries, e.g., <00200034349>, <01300029502>, <02500104870>, mention that the case was relied upon for legal principles, indicating its legal relevance and that it remains a valid precedent.
Cases like <02700007657> and <02300069221> mention reliance on or reference to the case "Union of India v. V.K. Bhaskar," but do not specify whether the case was upheld, questioned, or criticized. The treatment appears neutral, but without explicit language, the treatment remains somewhat ambiguous.
Entries such as <02300060969> and <02200018522> describe the case as cited or observed in certain circumstances, but do not clarify whether its authority was affirmed or diminished.
The case <02500151329> appears to be a citation of the case in a broader context, but treatment status (followed, criticized, etc.) is not clearly indicated.
Summary:
The list does not contain any explicit indications that any case has been overruled or treated as bad law.
The predominant pattern is that "Union of India v. V.K. Bhaskar" (1997) SCC 383 is treated as an authoritative, followed precedent.
Some references are neutral or merely citing the case without indicating its judicial treatment.
**Source :** SATPAL VS CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF - Delhi Jamna Prasad VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh S. S. CHOWDHARY VS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Delhi Bharat VS State Of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana Man Singh VS State Of Haryana And Others - Punjab and Haryana State of A. P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government VS P. Rajasekhar - Andhra Pradesh Des Raj VS State Of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana Surinder Singh VS State Of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana State of Kerala, represented by The Secretary To Government, Fisheries Department Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram VS S. Anitha, Fisheries Sub Inspector (Now Under Orders of Dismissal) Incharge of Malsya Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram - Kerala State of Kerala VS S. Anitha, Fisheries Sub-Inspector - Kerala STATE VS GOLEKHA CH. ROUTRAY - Orissa Collector, Ludhiana VS Mool Chand - Punjab and Haryana Budha Ram S/o Shri Lal Chand VS State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue - Rajasthan Mahendra Kumar VS Union Of India - Allahabad MADAN LAL VS STATE OF PUNJAB - Punjab and Haryana Manabhai Pratapbhai Damor VS State of Gujarat - Gujarat Somsinh Ramsinh Patel VS State of Gujarat - Gujarat Pandor Mahendrasinh Bharatsinh VS State of Gujarat - Gujarat Mushtaq Ahmad Peer VS University of Kashmir - Jammu and Kashmir Bhagwati Prasad vs Union Of India - Allahabad Deputy Director Of Collegiate Education (Administration) , Madras VS S. Nagoor Meera - Supreme Court Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: Biswaroop Chatterjee: Achinta Kumar Biswas: Nabendu Bose: Laxmi Narayan VS Tulsi Ram Patel: Sadanand Jha: G. P. Koushal: Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: State Of M. P. - Supreme Court
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
