Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (1.32 seconds)
Documents citing Biharilal Dobray vs Roshan Lal Dobray on 23 November, 1983

C.V. Raman And Ors. vs Bank Of India And Ors. on 18 April, 1984

98. But, in the case on hand, the tests employed in para. 10 of this judgment (cited supra) are necessary including the fixation of remuneration. No doubt, here is no provision for an appeal in the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of the Bank in question, Indian Overseas Bank. That was one of the tests laid down in Biharilal v. Roshan Lal, , respectively. The following is the observation at page 395 :
Madras High Court Cites 129 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.V. Raman And Ors. vs The Management Of Bank Of India, ... on 18 April, 1984

But in the case on hand, the tests employed in paragraph 10 of this judgment (cited supra) are necessary including the fixation of remuneration. No doubt, there is no provision for an appeal in the Discipline and Appeal Regulation of the Bank in question, Indian Overseas Bank. That was one of the tests laid down in Biharilal v. Roshan Lal respectively. The following is the observation at page 395.
Madras High Court Cites 136 - Cited by 8 - S Mohan - Full Document

Shri. Brightstarwell Marbaniang & Ors. vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 5 December, 2022

In Bihari Lal Dobray v. Roshan Lal Dopray this Court observed thus: (SCC p. 555, para 5) "The object of enacting Article 191(1)(a) is plain. A person who is elected to a legislature should be free to carry on his duties fearlessly without being subjected to any kind of governmental pressure. If such a person is holding an office which brings him remuneration and the Government has a voice in his continuance in that office, there is every likelihood of such person succumbing to the wishes of Government. Article 191(1)(a) is intended to eliminate the possibility of a conflict between duty and interest and to maintain the purity of the Legislatures."
Meghalaya High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - H S Thangkhiew - Full Document

Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar vs Dayanand Rayu Mandrekar And Ors. on 27 May, 2005

In this case the Supreme Court was dealing with hereditary right to office under the Mysore Village Offices Act. 1908. The Supreme Court stated that even if the eldest heir in the eldest branch was entitled to succeed, he would not get office till he was appointed by the Government. The Court further held that the appointment being made by the Government, the office to which it is made must be held under it, for there is no one else under whom it can be held. It is the appointment which perfected the right of office. It is therefore obvious that the power of appointment, the power of removal and/or the power of dissolution of the Board are all vested in the Government and that those powers have always been exercised by the Government whenever it is expedient or necessary to do so. It is therefore obvious that the authority of appointment and removal/dissolution of the Board is with the Government.
Bombay High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dalip Singh vs Faquir Singh And Another on 16 May, 1996

16. From the decision of the Supreme Court in Bihari Lal Dobray's case (supra), it appears that the true test to determine whether a body is a 'State' for the purposes of disqualification clause depends upon the degree of control the Government exercises over such bodies or committees, their composition, degree of its dependency on the Government for its financial needs and the functional aspects. Another factor which is required to be considered is whether such body discharge any Governmental function. In our opinion, none of these elements is present in the case of Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills. There is nothing on the record to show that the said Mill discharges any important Governmental function or that it is wholly or substantially financed by the Government or that the Government exercises deep and pervasive control over its functioning. It cannot, therefore, be said that Merinda Sugar Mill is an agency or instrumentality of the State.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Smt Usha Verma And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 February, 2024

5. Per contra, Sri K. Shahi, Sri Shivendra Singh Bhadauriya, Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, Sri C.S. Singh and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates for Respondents-Basic Education Officers; Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi and Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel; Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, Standing Counsel and Mrs. Shruti Malviya, Brief Holder for State-Respondents, submitted that not only there is huge delay in approaching this Court but there is no challenge to Government orders whereby provision of gratuity is provided to Teachers subject to certain conditions. They further submitted that according to referred Government Orders since petitioners have worked till 62 years or not submitted option, they are not entitled for payment of gratuity. Reliance is placed on Supreme Court's decision in Biharilal Dobray vs. Roshan Lal Dobray, (1984)1 SCC 551 and this Court's decision in District Basic Education Officer and another vs. Shivkali and others (Special Appeal Defective No. 651 of 2021), decided on 06.10.2021.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Dr. V.S. Acharya vs Returning Officer And Deputy ... on 22 June, 1990

In fact, the indirect and remote control exercisable by the Government in respect of an institution, such as, an aided College could not have made a holder of an office of profit under such College a holder of an office under the State Government -an important decisive factor laid down by the Supreme Court in its afore-referred decisions, particularly the decision in Biharilal's case (supra), as a test in deciding the case before him, is over-looked.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next