Vikrant Pathak vs M/S Hans Peace Corps on 31 January, 2024
In Naresh Kumar Vs. Hiroshi Maniwaand & Ors
(supra) it was held that :.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.83 seconds)Documents citing
Shri Naresh Kumar vs Shri Hiroshi Maniwa & Ors on 5 November, 2015
Rahul Dhanwantri vs M/S Hans Eye Care on 31 January, 2024
70. In the present case since the parties have agreed as per
clause 4.4 of the Appointment letter Ex.PW1/2 that the
contract shall be determinable by serving 30 days notice, the
plaintiff is only entitled to salary for 30 days. The plaintiff
cannot be held to be entitled to the damages higher than 30
days salary. (Reliance is placed upon the judgments in S.S.
Shetty vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd, SDU Travels Pvt. Ltd Vs. Vipin
Sharma and Naresh Kumar Vs. Hiroshi Maniwaand & Ors
Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Verma vs Maruti Udyog Ltd on 26 April, 2023
40. The observations made in L.N.Khosla's case (supra) were reiterated
by the High Court of Delhi in Naresh Kumar Vs Hiroshi Maniwa &
Ors. (supra) wherein it was observed as under;
Amarjeet Chhikara vs M/S Hans Cultural Centre on 31 January, 2024
76. In the present case since the parties have agreed as per
clause 4.4 of the Appointment letter Ex.PW1/2 that the
contract shall be determinable by serving 30 days notice, the
plaintiff is only entitled to salary for 30 days. The plaintiff
cannot be held to be entitled to the damages higher than 30
days salary. (Reliance is placed upon the judgments in S.S.
Shetty vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd, SDU Travels Pvt. Ltd Vs. Vipin
Sharma and Naresh Kumar Vs. Hiroshi Maniwaand & Ors
(supra)).
Shrikant vs Spectar Digi Services Pvt Ltd on 6 June, 2024
20. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, it is an
admitted case that the contract of employment provided that the
services of the plaintiff could have been terminated by giving one
month notice. Thus, the contract of service was terminable and as
per Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a contract
which is determinable in nature cannot be specifically enforced.
As held in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd(supra), Naresh Kumar
(supra), L.M.Khosla (supra), S.S.Shetty (supra) and M/S G4S
Security Services(supra), a contract of employment which
provides termination of services by one month's notice, then, at
best the employee will only be entitled to one month's pay in
terms of the employment contract, which stands already paid, in
the present case. An employee is not entitled to any relief of
continuation in services or pay with consequential benefits for
alleged remaining period of services till the date of his
superannuation. The judgments relied upon by the plaintiff are
distinguishable on facts of the present case and thus would not
come to rescue of the plaintiff.
Rajesh Chaudhary vs Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co Ltd on 30 April, 2024
The defendant has argued that the plaintiff was
terminated from the services by the defendant as he was found
indulging in unauthorized and unwarranted acts of impersonation and
misselling of the policy, thereby disentitling the plaintiff from any
relief as sought by him and for this reason as per the terms and
conditions the plaintiff was not obligated to issue the experience
certificate / relieving letter to the plaintiff. It is further argued by the
defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any damages as the
defendant acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
appointment letter. The defendant has also relied upon the judgment
in Naresh Kumar vs Hiroshi Maniwa & Ors. CS (OS) No. 393/2010
wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that: "if there is an
illegal termination, and the remedy as per law is the three months'
salary in lieu of the period of notice, then, for such aspect there
cannot be a claim in law with respect to damages on the ground of
mental agony and distress inasmuch as by law the monetary benefits
are limited to the notice period of termination".
Arya Kumar Muduli vs Spectar Digi Services Pvt Ltd on 6 June, 2024
24. It is an admitted case that the contract of employment
provided that the services of the plaintiff could have been
terminated by giving one month notice. Thus, the contract of
service was terminable and as per Section 14(1)(c) of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, a contract which is determinable in
nature cannot be specifically enforced. As held in Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd(supra), Naresh Kumar (supra), L.M.Khosla
Sahil
(supra), S.S.Shetty (supra) and M/S G4S Security
Khurmi
Services(supra), a contract of employment which provides
Digitally signed
termination of services by one month's notice, then, at best the by Sahil Khurmi
Date:
2024.06.06
CS SCJ No.2495/2019 Page No.16 of 20 17:36:56 +0530
employee will only be entitled to one month's pay in terms of the
employment contract, which stands already paid, in the present
case. An employee is not entitled to any relief of continuation in
services or pay with consequential benefits for alleged remaining
period of services till the date of his superannuation.
Presently At vs Gandhi Smarak Sangrahalaya Samiti on 21 April, 2018
Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so
at what rate and for what period?OPP
14.1 The findings under issue no. 2 above, which are equally applicable
under the present issue and be read as part of the present issue. The
same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The plaintiff is held
entitled for a sum of Rs.90,000/- for three month notice period on her such
termination of service vide Ex.PW1/9 w.e.f 01.08.2013. Defendants have
submitted that they had offered to the plaintiff such amount which plaintiff
did not accept. However the defendants have failed to prove the said
offering to the plaintiff in their evidence in absence of which the said
statement of defendant is not accepted. The citation titled Naresh Kumar
v. Hiroshi Maniwa & Ors. in CS (OS) No. 393/2010 dated 05.11.2015
passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi it is laid down at para no. 6(supra)
as to the grant of reasonable rate of interest. Accordingly simple interest
@ 9% per annum is granted to the plaintiff and against the defendant from
the date of filing of the suit till the recovery of suit amount. Keeping in view
the current rate of interest prevailing in the market and that nature of
transaction is not commercial between the parties the above rate of
interest is granted to the plaintiff. The present issue is accordingly decided
in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
National Pension System Trust vs Munish Malik And Anr on 18 November, 2024
In CS (OS) No. 393/2010 - Naresh Kumar Vs. Hiroshi Maniwa & Ors.
decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 05.11.2015 it was held that
contract of employment which provides termination of services by one
month's notice, then, at best the employee will only be entitled to one
month's pay in terms of the employment contract. In this case, clause 17 (a)
of appointment letter of plaintiff reads as under : -
Manu Sharma vs Mahle Filter Systems (India) Ltd on 25 September, 2023
Further, in the case titled as Naresh Kumar Vs Shri
Hiroshi Maniwa & Ors CS (OS) No. 393/2010 where it was
observed:-