Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 602 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Executive Committee Of Vaish Degree ... vs Lakshmi Narain And Ors on 12 December, 1975

Naresh Kumar vs Eureka Forbes Limited And Ors on 18 April, 2026

30. To support our view that cases Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli & Ors. Vs. Lakshmi Narain & Ors. (supra) and The Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Kumbakonam Vs. M. Parthasarathi (supra) could not have been relied upon in case of private employer terminating the services of its employee invoking the terms of the contract, it would be advantageous to refer to the judgment of Apex Court in AIR 2005 SC 3202 Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs. V.Sadasivan & Ors. In Binny Ltd.‟s case (Supra), the termination was challenged by employees and apart from other judgments, applicability of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr. (Supra) and Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress & Ors.‟ (Supra), was also discussed in detail in case of private employment where specific performance of the contract was sought to be CSDJ 504/2021 Naresh Kumar vs. Eureka Forbes Ltd. & Ors. 18 of 22 enforced challenging clause 9 which was similar to clause 10 in the present case. In para 25 to 28 and 31 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held as under :-
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. & Anr. vs Shri T.S.Mokha on 25 January, 2012

30. To support our view that cases Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli & Ors. Vs. Lakshmi Narain & Ors. (supra) and The Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Kumbakonam Vs. M. Parthasarathi (supra) could not have been relied upon in case of private employer terminating the services of its employee invoking the terms of the contract, it would be advantageous to refer to the judgment of Apex Court in AIR 2005 SC 3202 Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs. V.Sadasivan & Ors. In Binny Ltd.‟s case (Supra), the termination was challenged by employees and apart from other judgments, applicability of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr. (Supra) and Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress & Ors.‟ (Supra), was also discussed in detail in case of private employment where specific performance of the contract was sought to be enforced challenging clause 9 which was similar to clause 10 in the present case. In para 25 to 28 and 31 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held as under :-
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - P Rani - Full Document

Shankuntala Sahawala vs The Director Of Public Instruction Ii, ... on 11 July, 1977

6. The question still arises whether a writ of certiorari can issue against an institution which is not a statutory body, which is accepted by the Supreme Court in Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain (AIR 1976 SC 888) (supra) and Arya Vidya Sabha Kashi v. K. K. Srivastava (supra) as any institution on the same footing as a company and whether such body can be considered to be a public body against whom a writ of certiorari can issue, because of non-compliance of the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Code or conditions of affiliation by the management of such an institution. In view of the observations of the Supreme Court in those two decisions, we must hold that the distinction between a statutory body and a public body cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court decisions can only be read to mean that no relief can be granted as against an institution of this kind. It is clear that such a co-operative society or a company is not a public authority within the meaning of Article. 12 of the Constitution and the rules in the instant case viz. the rules under the Grant-in-Aid Code are not statutory rules. In the absence of any such statutory rules can it be said that a society receiving grants-in-aid is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article. 226 of the Constitution?
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

L. William, S/O. Luke vs The Church Of South India, Represented ... on 19 February, 1985

9. Ex.A-2 is the order of the District Educational Officer, Nilgiris, wherein he has directed the reinstatement of the plaintiff in service. As against this order, the first defendant filed an appeal to the Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore, who by his order dated 10.8.1973, which is marked as Ex.A-3, dismissed the appeal observing that failure to carry out the order would subject the institution to action under Rule 14 of the rules for recognition. He has also observed that the period of unemployment should be treated as on duty and the plaintiff should be paid for the period of unemployment by the management. The effect of this order would be that it would at best give right to the authorities to de-recognise the institution if the direction given under it is not followed by the school authorities.1 By virtue of the decision reported in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi Narain (1976)2 S.C.C.58 : A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 888, and also from the wording of the abovesaid order Ex.A-3, the plaintiff cannot ask for reinstatement on the strength of Exs.A-2 and A-3. The argument of Mr. V. Krishnan that he only wants a declaration that the plaintiff is deemed to be in service, in effect, gives a legal status to the plaintiff to be in employment with all the benefits that will follow by virtue of such employment.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K. Pratap Reddy vs Institute Of Rural Management Anand ... on 30 August, 2005

10. A contract of employment cannot ordinarily be enforced by or against any employer. The remedy is to sue for damages. (see Section 14 read with Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, see Indian Contract & Specific Relief Acts by Polloc and Mulla, 10th Edn. Page 983). The grant of specific performance is purely discretionary and must be refused when not warranted by the ends of justice. Such relief can be granted only on sound legal principles. In the absence of any statutory requirements, court do nor ordinarily forced an employer to recruit or retain in service an employee not required by the employer. There are, of course, certain exceptions to this rule, such as in the case of a public service dismissed from service in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution, reinstatement of a dismissed worker under the Industrial Law, a statutory body acting in breach of statutory obligation, and the like (SR Tewari v. District Board, Agra, Executive Committee of UP State Warehousing Corporation v. CK Tyagi, Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi Narain, see Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edn.Vol.44 para 405 to 420].
Gujarat High Court Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - M R Shah - Full Document

Gobind Pritamdas Malkani vs Amarendra Nath Sircar And Ors. on 9 June, 1978

Mr Roy further referred to a case (Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi Narain) and submitted that although a contract of personal service cannot ordinarily be specifically enforced but an order of injunction can be granted, and he submitted that this case of the petitioner falls within the special exceptional category and as such an order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the services of the petitioner as a branch manager should be granted. He particularly drew my attention to the judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati delivered in the case referred to above and submitted that a progressive view of the matter should be taken and considering the present difficulties in securing jobs in India, the law regarding master and servant should be given a liberal interpretation and reliefs should be granted in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that cases involving personal relations and of personal nature should be distinguished from professional management of impersonal nature and in such cases there is no reason why specific performance should not be granted of any contract of employment which does not involve relationship of personal character.
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

K.R.Dayananda vs The Headmaster on 3 June, 2019

There is thus a clear distinction between public employment governed by statutory http://www.judis.nic.in rules and private employment governed 25 purely by contract. The test for deciding the nature of relief - damages or reinstatement with consequential reliefs - is whether the employment is governed purely by contract or by a statute or statutory rules. Even where the employer is a statutory body, where the relationship is purely governed by contract with no element of statutory governance, the contract of personal service will not be specifically enforceable. Conversely, where the employer is a non-statutory body, but the employment is governed by a statute or statutory rules, a declaration that the termination is null and void and that the employee should be reinstated can be granted by courts. (Vide : Dr. S. Dutt vs. University of Delhi AIR 1958 SC 1050; Executive Committee of UP State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chandra Kiran Tyagi 1970 (2) SCR 250; Sirsi Municipality vs. Cecelia Kom Francies Tellis 1973 (3) SCR 348; Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College vs. Lakshmi Narain 1976 (2) SCR 1006; Smt. J. Tiwari vs. Smt. Jawala Devi Vidya Mandir AIR 1981 SC 122; and Dipak Kumar Biswas vs. Director of Public Instruction AIR 1987 SC 1422).
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next