Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 193 (3.49 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd vs Manorama Sirsi on 6 January, 2004

Dr. Shamsher Singh vs Ansal Institute Of Technology on 20 April, 2011

19. While deciding the second issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions in S. R. Tewari v District Board, Agra, AIR 1964 SC 1680, Executive Committee of U. P. State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. v Chandra Kiran Tyagi, AIR 1970 SC 1244, Indian Airlines Corporation v Sukhdeo Rai, AIR 1971 SC 1828, Bank of Baroda v Jewan Lal Mehrotra, (1970) 2 Lab LJ 54, Sirsi Municipality's case AIR 1973 SC 855, and observed, "On a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, it is, therefore, clear that a contract of personal service cannot ordinarily be specifically enforced and a Court normally would not give a declaration that the contract subsists and the employee, even after having been removed from service can be deemed to be in service against the will and consent of the employer. This rule, however, is subject to three well recognized exceptions - (i) where a public servant is sought to be removed from service in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India;
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Sunita Tanwar vs Ansal Institute Of Technology on 20 April, 2011

19. While deciding the second issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions in S. R. Tewari v District Board, Agra, AIR 1964 SC 1680, Executive Committee of U. P. State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. v Chandra Kiran Tyagi, AIR 1970 SC 1244, Indian Airlines Corporation v Sukhdeo Rai, AIR 1971 SC 1828, Bank of Baroda v Jewan Lal Mehrotra, (1970) 2 Lab LJ 54, Sirsi Municipality's case AIR 1973 SC 855, and observed, "On a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, it is, therefore, clear that a contract of personal service cannot ordinarily be specifically enforced and Civil Suit No.230/10 :11: a Court normally would not give a declaration that the contract subsists and the employee, even after having been removed from service can be deemed to be in service against the will and consent of the employer. This rule, however, is subject to three well recognized exceptions - (i) where a public servant is sought to be removed from service in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India;
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary & Ors on 24 April, 2008

13. Reliance placed by the learned counsel on Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi [(2004) 3 SCC 142] is not apposite. The courts exercise different jurisdictions while entertaining applications filed under different statutes. While entertaining a suit, the court's jurisdiction would be governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Although principles laid down therein may be found to be applicable, the said provisions by themselves need not be strictly applied by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question that the appellant was amenable to writ jurisdiction is not in dispute. If it was amenable to writ jurisdiction, the High Court was not only entitled to set aside an order of termination of service on an interpretation that neither the GOMs had any retrospective application nor, in any event, had any application to the case of appointment of the respondent but also to grant back wages. On the said premise, the High Court had the jurisdiction to set aside the order of termination. Once the order of termination was set aside, the logical corollary therefor should ordinarily ensue, subject of course to denial of the benefit either in totality or in part.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 11 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Gebr Pfeiffer (India) Pvt Ltd. vs Pradeep Sharma on 5 September, 2019

iii. Award cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff, apparently cannot be granted in view of the Clause 4 of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. Significantly, CRP No.8/2017 Page 15 of 17 as in Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi, (supra) in the present case also there has been no prayer made by the Plaintiff / Respondent herein in the suit for damages for breach of contract.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Ms Jahan Aara vs Swiss Re Global Business Solutions ... on 25 September, 2025

In our opinion, the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were clearly seeking enforcement of a contract of personal service and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant such reliefs as held by this Court in the case of Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi. The High Court and the first appellate Court were clearly in error in holding that the civil court had jurisdiction in the matter and the trial Court was right in holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction and rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff."
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Patel Manoj Prakashbhai vs Gujarat National Law University (Gnlu) on 17 April, 2017

In   the   decision   of   the   Apex   Court   in   the  case   of  Pearlite   Liners   (P)   Ltd.   v.   Manorama   Sirsi,   reported   in   (2004)   3   SCC   172,   the   Court  held that the contract of personal service cannot  be   enforced   and   a   Court   will   not   give   a  declaration   that   the   contract   subsists   and   the  employee continues to be in service against the  will   and   consent   of   the   employer.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next