Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 177 (1.40 seconds)
Documents citing Krishna Bahadur vs M/S Purna Theatre & Ors on 25 August, 2004

K.Vijayakumar vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation on 9 April, 2014

28. The decision in Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre and Others [(2004) 8 SCC 229], relied on by the respondents is also not applicable for the reason that nothing has been placed on record to show that waiver on account of some compromise came into being and the conduct of the appellant herein also do not indicate that he waived his statutory right under the provisions of the Disabilities Act. As already pointed out, Disabilities Act, being a beneficial legislation, has to be interpreted liberally in favour of the person who suffered disability.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

Hotel Taj Palace vs Shri Ravi Rohilla And Anr. on 14 March, 2016

25. The finding of the learned Industrial Adjudicator that the payment made on 18.11.1993 to the respondent-workman is no payment in compliance with the Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is contrary to the aforesaid legal provisions and the learned Industrial Adjudicator failed to appreciate that making of payment of one month's wages on 18.11.1993 to the respondent- workman which was communicated on 19.11.1993 through dismissal order along with the approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act, forms the part of same transaction. The judgments relied upon by the respondent-workman, i.e., Krishna Bahadur vs. Purna Theatre and Ors (Supra) and Pramod Jha and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (Supra) loses its significance in the present context.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - I S Mehta - Full Document

Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Ushakumari on 10 July, 2009

27. Mr. B.Ashok Shenoy, the counsel appearing for the respondents/workmen cited the following decisions: LIC of India v. Suresh.R (2008(2) ILR 537); Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre & Ors.( AIR 2004 SC 4282); Mohan Lal v. The Management of M/s Bharat Electronics, Ltd. (AIR 1981 SC 1253); Balbir Singh v. Kurukshetra Central Coop.Bank Ltd., & Anr.(1990 (1)LLJ 443); Jayabharat Printers & Publishers Pvt.Ltd.
Kerala High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - V K Mohanan - Full Document

Hassan Thermal Power Pvt. Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 27 September, 2019

In Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre [Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre, (2004) 8 SCC 229 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1086] it was held: (SCC p. 233, paras 9-10) "9. The principle of waiver although is akin to the principle of estoppel; the difference between the two, however, is that 52 whereas estoppel is not a cause of action; it is a rule of evidence; waiver is contractual and may constitute a cause of action; it is an agreement between the parties and a party fully knowing of its rights has agreed not to assert a right for a consideration.
Karnataka High Court Cites 178 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

The Principal Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S.Sea Queen Shipping Services (P) Ltd on 2 March, 2020

"41.Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right. It involves conscious abandonment of an existing legal right, advantage, http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment in CMA.No.3 of 2020 [The Principal Commissioner of Customs V. M/s.Sea Queen Shipping Services (P) Ltd.] 37/42 benefit, claim or privilege, which except for such a waiver, a party could have enjoyed. In fact, it is an agreement not to assert a right. There can be no waiver unless the person who is said to have waived, is fully informed as to his rights and with full knowledge about the same, he intentionally abandons them. (Vide:Dawsons Bank Ltd. v. Nippon Menkwa Kabushihi Kaish, AIR 1935 PC 79; Basheshar Nath v. CIT, AIR 1959 SC 149; Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao, AIR 1965 SC 1405; Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S. B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, AIR 1968 SC 933; Jaswantsingh Mathurasingh v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 5; Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim, AIR 2001 SC 2062; and Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4282."
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - R S Kumar - Full Document

Kalpraj Dharamshi Successful ... vs Kotak Investment Advisors Limited on 10 March, 2021

(Vide Dawsons Bank Ltd. v. Nippon Menkwa Kabushiki Kaisha [(1934­35) 62 IA 100 : AIR 1935 PC 79] , Basheshar Nath v. CIT [AIR 1959 SC 149] , Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao [AIR 1965 SC 1405] , Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh [AIR 1968 SC 933] , Jaswantsingh Mathurasingh v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 5] , Sikkim 111 Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim [(2001) 5 SCC 629 : AIR 2001 SC 2062] and Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre [(2004) 8 SCC 229 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1086 : AIR 2004 SC 4282] .)
Supreme Court of India Cites 99 - Cited by 93 - B R Gavai - Full Document

M/S Galada Power & Telecomun.Ltd. vs United India Insurnce Co.Ltd. on 28 July, 2016

“41. Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right. It involves conscious abandonment of an ex- isting legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privi- lege, which except for such a waiver, a party could have enjoyed. In fact, it is an agreement not to as- sert a right. There can be no waiver unless the person who is said to have waived, is fully in- formed as to his rights and with full knowledge about the same, he intentionally abandons them. (Vide Dawsons Bank Ltd. v. Nippon Menkwa Kabushiki Kaisha6, Basheshar Nath v. CIT7, Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao8, As- sociated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh9, Jaswantsingh Mathurasingh v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn.10, Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim11 and Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre.)
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 11 - Cited by 72 - D Misra - Full Document

Nirala Education Society And Ors. vs Jugalkishore Bhagwatiprasad Shukla ... on 11 October, 2006

In Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre (supra), in paragraph 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that a right can be waived by the party for whose benefit certain requirements or conditions had been provided for by a statute subject to the condition that no public interest is involved therein. Whenever waiver is pleaded it is for the party pleading the same to show that an agreement waiving the right in consideration of some compromise came into being. Statutory right, however, may also be waived by his conduct. In this background, when Section 9 of the MEPS Act is looked into, Section 9 permits an employee who is aggrieved, to file an appeal. Thus, respondent No. 1 can in certain circumstances give up his right to file appeal. The question is whether joining other services for brief period can be taken to mean such a waiver and it can be said that therefore respondent No. 1 has waived his right to file appeal or because of such alternate employment he has seized to be an employee aggrieved within the meaning of Section 9 of the MEPS Act. However, the effect has not been considered by the School Tribunal at all. Therefore, it will not be proper for this Court to pronounce upon it for the first time in writ jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next