Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Namdeo Vanji Bachav vs Dhule District Central Cooperative on 2 April, 2014

M/S Indo European Breweries Ltd ... vs Dnyaneshwar Shyamrao Dhanwate And Ors on 20 March, 2019

Indrabhanji Wawande Vs. Industrial court, Nagpur & Os.], (xx) 1987 (3) Bom.C.R. 425 [Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Balkrishna Pen Pvt. Ltd.], (xxi) 2006-IILLJ (SC) Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar], (xxii) 2005 DGLS (SC) 36 [Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. S.C. Sharma], (xxiii) 2014 (10) LJSOFT 134 [Namdeo Vanji Bachav Vs. Dhule District Central Co- operative Bank Ltd.], (xxiv) Judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11976-11977 of 2014 decided on 22.8.2016 [M.S. Kazi Vs. Muslim Education Society and Ors.]
Bombay High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 1 - T V Nalawade - Full Document

The President Samajseva Shikshan ... vs Satyapramod Govindrao Kulkarni And ... on 28 July, 2025

12. Mr. V. D. Salunke, the learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are completely unsustainable. He contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in properly interpreting the provisions of Rules 36 and 37 of the MEPS Rules and applying the same to the facts of the case. He contends that since, inquiry was being held against a Head Master, it was a statutory compulsion that the President should be a Member of the Inquiry Committee and also its Convener. He contends that the chargesheet is also required to be issued by the President since inquiry was being held against Head Master. He criticises the findings and observations by the learned Tribunal holding that the inquiry was vitiated on the ground that the President was Convener and Member of the Inquiry Committee. As regards back wages, the contention of Mr. Salunke is that the respondent/Head Master did not make any averment in the memorandum of appeal that he was not gainfully employed after his termination while the appeal was 8 wp-10245-2024 pending and was therefore not entitled to any back wages. He placed reliance on Namdeo Vanji Bachav Vs. Dhule District Central Co-operative Bank Limited , reported in 2014 (4) Mh.L.J 768 and Vidya Vikas Mandal Vs. The Education Officer, reported in 2007 (3) Mh.L.J 801 to support his contention. He contends that the respondent/ Head Master also did not file any separate affidavit in this regard. He further submits that a mere oral statement allegedly made at the stage of final hearing of the appeal, will not be sufficient to hold that the respondent/Head Master has discharged the initial burden of proof that he was not in gainful employment during pendency of the appeal.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1