Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing All India Indian Overseas Bank Sc & St ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 31 October, 1996

The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Karnataka State Commission on 3 March, 2023

"12. Article 338 of the Constitution of India specifies for Constitution of National Commission of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST employees' welfare association vs. Union of India (Supra) held that "all the procedural powers of civil court given to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe by Article 338(8) of the Constitution of India are for the limited purpose of investigating any matter under Article 338(5)(a) or inquiring into any complaint, under Article 338(5)(b). The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution. The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type found in the letter dated 4.3.1993 directing the Bank to stop the promotion process pending further investigation and final verdict in the matter."
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bangalore Bangalore Rural And ... vs Sri M Mallikarjunaiah on 10 November, 2020

12. Article 338 of Constitution of India specifies for constitution of National Commission for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. The Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST employees' welfare association v. Union of India (Supra) held that "all the procedural powers of civil court given to the National Commission for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe by Article 338(8) of the Constitution of India are for the limited purpose of investigating any matter under Article 338(5)(a) or inquiring into any complaint, under 338(5)(b). The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived 14 from a reading, of clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution. The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type found in the letter dated 4.3.1993 directing the Bank to stop the promotion process pending further investigation and final verdict in the matter".
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sri M B Siddalingaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2020

In terms of the powers and functions of the Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution and its interpretation in the afore-extracted judgments of the Apex court read with powers and functions of the State Commission under the Act, would make it unmistakably clear that the impugned order which decides the dispute between the petitioner and the 29 fifth respondent and gives a direction to the State Government to promote the fifth respondent with retrospective effect, correct the seniority, extend all consequential benefits and report the action taken back to the Commission, are all powers which are ostensibly adjudicatory in nature, which power the Commission, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of ALL INDIA INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK SC AND ST EMPLOYEES' WELFARE ASSOCIATION & OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1996) 6 SCC 606 and COLLECTOR v. AJIT JOGI reported in (2011) 10 SCC 357 (supra) interpreting Article 338 of the Constitution of India, does not have.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Smt Sapna Pramod vs The Secretary on 12 August, 2024

"In terms of the powers and functions of the Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution and its interpretation in the afore-extracted judgments of the Apex Court, read with the powers and functions of the State Commission under the Act, it is unmistakably clear that the impugned order, which decides the dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent and gives a direction to the State Government to promote the fifth respondent with retrospective effect, correct the seniority, extend all consequential benefits, and report the action taken back to the Commission, involves powers which are ostensibly adjudicatory in nature. The Commission, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association & Others v. Union of India & Others (1996) 6 SCC 606 and Collector v. Ajit Jogi (2011) 10 SCC 357 (supra), interpreting Article 338 of the Constitution of India, does not possess such adjudicatory powers."
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - H Chandangoudar - Full Document

Hassan Thermal Power Pvt. Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 27 September, 2019

In All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India [(1996) 6 SCC 606] , this Court, dealing with Article 338(8) of the Constitution of India (similar to Section 63 of the Disabilities Act), observed as follows: (SCC pp. 609 & 611, paras 5 & 10) "5. It can be seen from a plain reading of clause (8) that the Commission has the power of the civil court for the purpose of conducting an investigation contemplated in 18 sub-clause (a) and an inquiry into a complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338 of the Constitution. ***
Karnataka High Court Cites 178 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Jayamma vs State Of Karnataka on 15 March, 2021

Insofar as the powers and functions and limitations of the authority of the National Commission is concerned, in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association (supra), the Apex Court has held that the National Commission, constituted under Article 338 of the Constitution of India, its powers and duties are regulated in terms of Clause (5) of Article 338. It was held that the Commission lacks the authority to issue an order directing to stop promotion process pending further investigation and final verdict in the matter. It was held that all the procedural powers of a Civil Court are given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating and enquiring into the matters as provided under sub-clause (b) of Clause (5) and that too for that limited purpose only.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R Devdas - Full Document

The Indian Institute Of Science ... vs The Indian Institute Of Science, ... on 27 August, 1998

34. For the reasons aforesaid, in my opinion, the impugned resolution passed by the Governing Council of the Institute is Constitutionally invalid and accordingly, quashed. Before parting, I may refer to the judgment in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC / ST Employees' Association v Union of India, wherein after considering the provisions of Article 338 in the context of the powers exercisable by the National Commission for SC/ST, in Paragraph 10, it has been held by the Supreme Court that.-
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R Babu Rao vs Manish H Sanghvi on 12 October, 2023

The learned counsel for respondent further placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528 [INDIAN BANK ASSOCIATION AND ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.], but in what context the principles enunciated in the above cited decision will come to the aid of the complainant/respondent herein is not at all forthcoming. The facts being different, the said principles cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R Badamikar - Full Document

Indian Institute Of Science Sc/St ... vs Indian Institute Of Science And Anr. on 7 June, 2004

30. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Employees Association relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ml India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees and Ors. Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors., wherein it is held that while the Commission has only power to investigate into the matter and enquire into the complaints; and for such purposes, it has the procedural powers of a Civil Court, but has no power to issue any adjudicatory orders.
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - N K Patil - Full Document

The Managing Director vs Sri Ravindra on 29 March, 2023

6. On entering appearance, they filed statement of objections. Without considering same, respondent no.2 proceeded to issue impugned directions which were beyond its powers under the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Commission Act' for short). Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of All Indian Overseas Bank SC & ST Employees' Welfare Association Vs. Union of India1, it was submitted that though Commission had powers of Civil Court; its powers did not extend to adjudication issuing directions etc. Therefore, impugned directions were arbitrary and illegal and unsustainable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - Full Document
1   2 3 Next