RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Narayan Maity, son of Late Sasadhar Maity – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality.
I.A.No.6364 of 2020
Perused the office note and stamp report.
In view of the stamp report dated 11.12.2020, it appears that in terms of the order dated 23.03.2020 and 06.05.2020 passed in suo motu Writ (Civil) No.3 of 2020 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the office has reported that the appeal is within time, therefore, no order is required to be passed in the present interlocutory application.
Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A.No.6364 of 2020 stands disposed of.
L.P.A. No.386 of 2020
The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent of Patna High Court directed against the order/judgment dated 22.06.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3921 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the orders passed by the Administrative Authority dated 20.10.2011 and 08.04.2013, by which, recovery of Rs.3,95,388/- has been directed to be made from the writ petitioner, have been quashed with a direction upon the respondents that the amount so recovered, if any, be refunded in favo
Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy reported in (2004) 1 SCC 347
Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer
Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana reported in (1997) 6 SCC 538
State of Punjab Vrs. Rafiq Masih
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vrs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors.
U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh reported in (2006) 11 SCC 464
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.