Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Pti Employees Union vs Press Trust Of India Ltd on 18 September, 2020

Kapil Wadhawan vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 November, 2021

17. Facts of the case and in particular subsequent events (stated above), has indisputably established, change in management of a Corporate Debtor. This fact is hardly disputed by the Intervenor in his Affidavit, contending that, "DHFL ought to issue equity shares to shareholders of PCHFL i.e. PEL and thereafter upon allotment, DHFL will become a wholly owned subsidiary of PEL." It may be stated that, Intervenor has not disputed appointment of six Additional Directors on the Board of Director of DHFL, with effect from 30th September, 2021, consequent to reverse merger and implementation of Resolution Plan. The objection in respect of subsequent events, sought to be raised by Mr. Badheka, learned Counsel for Intervenor is that, petitioners ought to have followed the, due procedure, to place on record the subsequent events and certainly not by filing a, 'purshis'. Mr. Badheka, has placed reliance on judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of PTI Employees Union Vs. Press Trust of India, (2021) SCC Online Del 939 wherein it was held that;
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S K Shinde - Full Document

Naresh Kumar Trehan vs University Of Delhi And Ors on 1 July, 2024

15. In order to buttress her arguments on the aforesaid objections, she refers to various paragraphs of counter affidavit filed by the respondent college to submit that the respondents have sufficiently questioned and objected to the maintainability of the petition, both on the ground of alternate and efficacious remedy being available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as also on the grounds of disputed questions of facts. To substantiate, she relies upon the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MADHU SARDANA Signing Date:04.07.2024 12:31:54 W.P. (C) 1094/2011 Page 14 of 35 judgment of PTI Employees Union vs. Press Trust of India Ltd., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1216.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - T R Gedela - Full Document

Chhattisgarh Panchayat Sachiv Sangh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 December, 2021

2. When the matter is taken-up for hearing, Mr. Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State / respondents No.1 and 2 on advance copy, would submit that the petitioner Association has no locus to challenge the transfer of those 237 transferred Gram Panchayat Secretaries as they have not consented for that and there is no authorisation for and on behalf of those 2 Panchayat Secretaries, therefore, the instant writ petition has to be dismissed as not maintainable. He would rely upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the matter of PTI Employees Union v. Press Trust of India Ltd.1 and the decision of this Court in the matter of Pradesh Lipik Varg Shaskeeya Karmachari Sangh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others2 to buttress his submission, whereas, Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Association, would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) Represented by its Assistant General Secretary on behalf of the Association v. Union of India and others3 and Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association and others v. Union of India and others4 in support of his writ petition.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - S Agrawal - Full Document
1