Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 86 (1.74 seconds)
Documents citing Central Bank Of India Ltd vs Karunamoy Banerjee on 18 August, 1967

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank vs Shri.R.H. Kavital on 21 August, 2023

8. Though Sri. Pradeep Sawkar has made a valiant attempt to contend that DE has admitted his guilt and as such, there is nothing which requires to be proceeded by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. KARUNAMOY BANERJEE reported in AIR 1968 SC 266, for which proposition there cannot be any quarrel, same cannot be extended to facts on hand for reasons more than one. In the instant case DE has raised a specific plea in his evidence tendered before labour court viz., in examination-in-chief vide paragraph 6 to the effect that he does not know even to write in Kannada language properly and he does not know how to read and write English. Said issue will have to be thrashed out on evidence being tendered by the management. That apart, DE has specifically contended in paragraph 10 of his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief before the labour court that on 31.10.2016 he was informed by the Branch Manager about enquiry being conducted at Mangaluru and he had obtained his signatures on the papers typed in English and thereafter informed him to state before the enquiry officer admitting his signatures and this would result in saving his job and as such he had affixed his signature. The veracity of said statement will have to be
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Central Bank Of India vs Sh. Sandeep Banerjee on 25 January, 2014

That defendant no.1 was working as a Assistant Engineer with Delhi Jal Board derfdt no.3 and applied for a personal loan to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/­ vide his loan application 1 Central Bank Of India Vs Sandeep Banerjee Anr. 2/6 which was duly sanctioned vide the sanctioned letter dt. 24.02.2005. That defdt no.3, the employer of defdt no. 1, confirming the financial status gave an undertaking dt. 04.03.2005 assuring that the plaintiff bank that defdt no. 3 shall deduct the installment amount of Rs. 4025/­ from the monthly salary of defdt no.1 & also assured that in case of his cessation of services, the balance would be deducted from the terminal benefits of defdt no.1 on receipt of the intimation from the plaintiff bank. That on 08.03.2005 various documents were got executed viz. the letter of waiver, interest, demand promissory note, consent clause, letter of deposit of advance cheque by defdt no.1 inf avour of the plaintiff for the disbursement of the personal loan. That defdt no.2 stood as a guarantor and signed various documents i.e form of guarantee, consent clause to the executed by the guarantor and guarantor consent letter on the said date. However, defdts failed to maintain the financial discipline which constrained the plaintiff to issue legal notice dt. 25.08.2008 & eventually file the present suit u/o 37 for recovery.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bank Of India vs Presiding Officer on 27 January, 2009

A contention was raised by counsel for the respondent- workman that the workman had been put to test at the very initiation of the enquiry. A perusal of the enquiry proceedings would show that the workman had been given ample opportunity to explain his conduct. It was only with an intention to ascertain whether the enquiry was actually required or not. This was an occasion where he was given an opportunity to explain his position, when the documents were put to him on which the bank wanted to place reliance for proving the charges alleged against him. It has been admitted and the disciplinary proceedings also show that after the conclusion of evidence of the bank, the respondent-workman was given ample opportunity to produce his own evidence and to clarify his stand as is apparent from the records of the departmental proceedings. It, therefore, cannot be said that the workman was not given ample opportunity to defend against the charges levelled against him. At this stage, reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reliance whereof has been laid by the counsel for the petitioner which on facts and on law would be applicable to the present case needs to be made. The said judgment is Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. Karunamoy Banerji, 1967 (2) LLJ 715. In this case, the Labour Court held that the enquiry proceedings are violative of the principles of natural justice on the following three reasons and thereafter proceeds to explain the consequences thereof;
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A G Masih - Full Document

K. Venkateswarlu vs Nagarjuna Grameena Bank And Anr. on 14 February, 1995

"We must, however, emphasize that the rules of natural justice, as laid down by this Court, will have to be observed, in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a workman. If the allegations are denied by the workman it is needless to state that the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management; and the witnesses called, by the management, must be allowed to be cross-examined by the workman and the latter must also be given an opportunity to examine himself and adduce any other evidence that he might choose, in support of his plea. But, if the workman admits his guilt, to insist upon the management to let in evidence about the allegations, will, in our opinion, only be an empty formality. In such a case, it will be open to the management to examine the workman himself, even in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any explanations for his conduct, or to place before the management any circumstances which will go to mitigate the gravity of the offence. But, even then, the examination of the workman, under such circumstances, should not savour of an inquisition. If, after the examination of the workman, the management chooses to examine any witnesses, the workman must be given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and also to adduce any other evidence that he may choose".
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 July, 2022

"19. We must, however, emphasize that the rules of natural justice, as laid down by this Court, will have to be observed, in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a workman. If the allegations are denied, by the workman, it is needless to state that the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management; and the witnesses called, by the management, must be allowed to be cross-examined, by the workman, and the latter must also be given an opportunity to examined himself and adduce any other evidence that he might choose, in support of his plea. But, if the workman admits his RC/ 4 guilt, to insist upon the management to let in evidence about the allegations, will, in our opinion, only be an empty formality. In such a case, it will be open to the management to examine the workman himself, even in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any explanation for his conduct, or to place before the management any circumstances which will go to mitigate the gravity of the offence. But, even then, the examination of the workman, under such circumstances, should not savour of an inquisition. If, after the examination of the workman, the management chooses to examine any witnesses, the workman must be given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and also to adduce any other evidence that he may choose."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S N Pathak - Full Document

Shri Subendu Dixit And Ors. vs The Rajasthan Agriculture University ... on 9 April, 1990

In Central Bank of India v. Karunamoy , their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the domestic enquiry cannot be amounted with the enquiry held under Article 311 of the Constitution. It was further observed as follows The rule of natural justice will have to be observed, in the conduct of domestic enquiry against a workman. If the allegations are denied by the workman, the burden of proving the truth of those allegation will be on the management and the witnesses called, by the management must be allowed to be cross-examined, by the work-man, and the latter must also be given an opportunity to examine himself and adduce any other evidence that he might choose, in support of his plea. But if the workman admits his guilt, to insist upon the management to let in evidence about the allegations will only be an empty formality. In such a case, it will be open to the management to examine the workman himself, even in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any explanation for his conduct, or to place before the management any circumstances which will go to mitigate the gravity of the offence.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 43 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next