Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.34 seconds)
Documents citing Sandipta Gangopadhyay vs Allahabad Bank & Ors on 21 April, 2015

Kulamani Biswal vs Union Of India And Anr on 31 October, 2018

―8. While, there can be no quarrel to the proposition that merely because a period of suspension is long, that by itself cannot be a ground to withdraw the order of suspension. We are of the view that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank (supra) and in Rajiv Kumar (supra) sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Vikash Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 September, 2023

In support of the contentions, reliance is further placed upon State of H.P. v. B.C. Thakur, 1994 SCC (L&S) 835, Union of India & Ors. v. Raj Kishore Parija, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 235, O.P. Gupta v. Union of lndia & Ors.,1987 (4) SCC 328, Samiran Chakrabarty v. Union of India & Ors., 1992 SCC OnLine Cal 52, Allahabad Bank v. Sandipta Gangopadhyay, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 2717, Samir Kumar Roy Chowdhury v. Indian Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd, 1997 SCC OnLine Cal 20, Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 405, Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. UOI & Anr., 2015 (7) SCC 291, UOI & Anr. v. S.A. Sari, 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 3575, K. Padma Kumar v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 39978, UOI v. B. Anil Kumar, 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 31390, State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, IPS, AIR 2018 SC 4060, Sandipta Gangopadhyay v. Allahabad Bank, 2015 SCC OnLine CAL 3894, Gulshan Choudhary v. Punjab & Sind Bank, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 284, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Vijay Kumar Jha, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4167, Office Liquidator v.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A K Mendiratta - Full Document

Swarup Chandra Bisui vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 March, 2024

The authority by its conduct, should justify the purpose of the suspension of the person. Even in case of a deemed suspension under the Rules, as in case of the present writ petitioner, he cannot be left in vacuum, to suffer a stigma for an uncertain vast future period. Thus by dint of the verdict of the Courts, the period of suspension has been acknowledged to be limited and not to continue indefinitely, till the criminal trial is concluded. As it is held in Sanditpa Gangopadhyay's case (supra), that the trial in a Court may face various impediments and its period could be elongated for multifarious reasons attributable to various stakeholders. Continuing to restrain a person to join in duty and paying him allowance, would not be justifiable, in such an eventuality.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1