Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 59 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar vs Bank Of India on 6 May, 1997

Torrent Power Ltd & vs Chelabhai Nathabhai Luhar & 2 on 10 January, 2017

In Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar v. Bank of India (1997) (supra) a Bank employee was allegedly involved in misappropriation of the funds of a Co-operative Housing Society and in an inquiry held under the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, liability to refund the misappropriated amount was fixed upon the employee. He was also subjected to the prosecution for the said act and was eventually acquitted by the High Court. Meanwhile, his services came to be terminated not by way of a penalty but by order simpliciter. On demand of the reasons, it was disclosed to the employee that the termination was effected for loss of confidence. No departmental inquiry was held. In the context of the above facts, it was ruled in paragraph No. 5 thus:
Gujarat High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 14 - G R Udhwani - Full Document

State Bank Of Travancore vs Prem Singh on 10 April, 2019

Following Francis Klein (supra), Anil Kumar Chakaborty (supra), Workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. (supra), A.K. Dass (supra), Sudhir Vishnu Panwalkar (supra), Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra), M.G. Vittal (supra), Sindhu Education Society (supra),Sanjiv Kumar Mahapatra (supra), O.P. Chauhan (supra),Sri G. Suggappa (infra) and Chelabhai Nathabhai Luhar (supra), this Court held that the reinstatement cannot be directed in a case of loss of confidence even if the employee is able to secure an acquittal or discharge.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 27 - J R Midha - Full Document

Agriculture Produce Market Committee, ... vs Manojbhai Dahyabhai Sonagra on 14 July, 2025

However, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar vs. Bank of India, reported in AIR (1997) SC 2240, the APMC has to justify the order of termination on the ground of loss of confidence before the learned Labour Court during the course of adjudication of the industrial dispute and the employer is bound to establish that the dismissal order was raised on tangible basis and the power has been exercised by the employer objectively, in good faith, with utmost honesty, and due care as well as prudence.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Packiam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 22 October, 2019

(iii) to continue him in service/establishment would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer, or would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, http://www.judis.nic.in Page 19 of 24 W.P.No.10053 of 2013 based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved. (See also Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar v. Bank of India [(1997) 6 SCC 271 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1662 : AIR 1997 SC 2249] .)
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Air India Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 24 August, 2022

(2) 520, Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. v. Kala Singh, (1997) 6 SCC 159, Sudhir Vishnu Panwalkar v. Bank of India, (1997) 6 SCC 271, Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 3645, Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane, (2005) 3 SCC 254, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy, AIR 2005 SC 2769, T.N.C.S. Co. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584, Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal, (2012) 1 SCC 442, On- Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd. v. Anand Singh Rawat, (2009) 165 DLT 89, All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. O.P. W.P.(C) 8931/2022 & W.P.(C) 8948/2022 Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Chauhan, 2007 LLR 435 (Del HC), Abheraj Jaswal v. M/s Godrej Boyce Manufacturing, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3301, Johnson and Johnson Ltd. v. Gajendra Singh Rawat, (2016) 233 DLT 388, Lancers Convent Senior Secondary v. Jai Prakash, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7763, Sindhu Education Society v. Kacharu Jairam Khobragade (1995) ILLJ 451 Bom, Sanjiv Kumar Mahapatra v. A.L. Alaspurkar, 2003 (1) ALLMR 534, National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Sri G. Suggappa, W.P. No.66/2013, Torrent Power Ltd. v. Chelabhai Nathabhai Luhar 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 3580 , summarised the principles as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Swarnapuri Cooperative Stores Ltd vs The Presiding Officer on 30 August, 2022

Ltd. [(2001) 9 SCC 609 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 257 : AIR 2001 SC 3645] this Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of confidence in the employee, observing that, (SCC p. 614, para 9) (i) the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, he commits an act which results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in service/establishment would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer, or would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/24 W.P.No.31250 of 2004 Management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the Management, regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved. (See also Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar v. Bank of India [(1997) 6 SCC 271 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1662 : AIR 1997 SC 2249] .)
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - J S Prasad - Full Document

Rampal Chouhan vs Marwar Gramin Bank And Anr. on 3 June, 2004

9. The learned counsel has further cited Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar v. Bank of India (9). In that case the documents were filed by the Bank of justify the loss of confidence. On perusing the documents the Court found that the order of termination did not suffer from any vice. In the instant case, it is not the case of the Bank that if the ocular evidence is eschewed, there is sufficient documentary evidence to prove the charges. In fact there is no reference to any document to prove the charges. The entire case is dependent on the ocular testimony of the witnesses whose statements were not recorded during the regular enquiry but the same were taken on record. The witnesses refused to face cross-examination. Thus, this case is also of no help to the respondents.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - N N Mathur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next