Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.56 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Goa Shipyard Ltd vs Babu Thomas on 30 May, 2007

Manojkumar Nemaji Shahare vs Zilla Parishad, Nagpur Through Chief ... on 22 December, 2018

When the disciplinary authority i.e. the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent no.1 passed the order of penalty by impugned order dated 30.03.2015, under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the petitioner could file appeal only before the respondent no.2 Divisional Commissioner i.e. the very appellate authority, who had issued memo of charges against him. This clearly shows that even in the facts of the present case, the right of appeal available to the petitioner was vitiated. It could not be said to ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 23:30:38 ::: 18 WP489-17.odt be cured because there was no further right of appeal available to the petitioner. As a result, in the facts of the present case, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 in the cases of Chairman, A.P. State Electricity Board .vs. M. Kurmi Naidu (supra ) and Goa Shipyard Ltd. .vs. Babu Thomas (supra), would not be applicable.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Mrs. Jayanthi G. Ravi vs Chemizol Additives Pvt Ltd on 3 January, 2022

13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant comes out with a plea that the 'Board of Directors' is empowered to subsequently ratify an Act which was done earlier and to lend support to this contention cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Goa Shipyard Ltd. v Babu Thomas' reported in 2007) 10 SCC page 622 where in at paragraph 13 it is observed as under:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Air India Limited vs Ms. Shashikala Jatav on 16 September, 2010

Mr. Talsania has further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Goa Shipyard Ltd. vs. Babu Thomas1. In the said case, the appellate authority passed the order and the appeal was preferred before the Chairman and Managing Director. The appeal was heard by the Board of Directors. It was held that there was no denial of right of appeal and, therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the delinquent even the order is passed by the appellate authority exercising disciplinary powers.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P Majmudar - Full Document

Mrs. Jayanthi G. Ravi vs Chemizol Additives Pvt Ltd on 3 January, 2022

13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant comes out with a plea that the 'Board of Directors' is empowered to subsequently ratify an Act which was done earlier and to lend support to this contention cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Goa Shipyard Ltd. v Babu Thomas' reported in 2007) 10 SCC page 622 where in at paragraph 13 it is observed as under:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

K.V.Sridhar vs N.Krishnasamy on 7 September, 2018

7.On perusal of the complaint, it has been filed by one S.Palanivel, S/o.S.P.Subbiah Pillai, power of attorney of one Mr.N.Krishnasamy, S/o.Nallamuthu Gounder representing the complany viz., Sri Saravana Spinning Mills Private Limited, Dindigul. The first document annexed along with the complaint viz., the Board resolution shows that the Board of Directors passed resolution thereby delegates its power to its Managing Director Mr.N.Krishnasamy, to file criminal and civil cases on behalf of the complainant company. The other documents annexed with the complaint is that his power of attorney, in which, the said N.Krishnasamy, Managing Director of the complainant company sub delegated his power to Mr.Palanivel, Accounts Manager of the company to take action under criminal and civil law on behalf of the company. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the unreported judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1389 of 2003 vide judgment dated 24.03.2008 ? M/s.J.K.Industries Ltd., Vs. Babu, wherein, this Court has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

State Of Karnataka By Lokayukta Police vs S M Vishwanatha S/O Marigowda on 9 March, 2011

15. The (Apex Court i_:_:_VVVth_e'V.ease.'of_State of Goa vs Babu Thomas ((2.oQs)s has held that, where the first sao.etion:f o're1'e_19 K_zrg,é1,." issued by an meompetent§--.auttioVrits3}4.etnd seoo:"'1'<i 's'é:tnet:on order was issued 1*etros'g3ezi3t.ix*e?§f'--.ett't.e:?the iieognizance was taken, that too by'. est'-i;m.:o1:r2 "e_te'ot authority', on such facts; the court heid 'that"Vth'et'e..*§i;tt'*a:s' ho sanction order under the law and this..is4'fuhde1mentaI error which imfaiidates "-..:;t;;e---1eogn.§za:;ce aswbteting without jurisdiction, The Apex
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Jagannathan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next