Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981

Smt. Kesari Devi W/O Shri Gulab Singh, ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 18 August, 2005

35. Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Mohammad Bhakar v. Y. Krishna Reddy, 1970 SLR 768; Reserve Bank of India v. C.T. Dighe, ; State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, ; Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman, ; Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India and Ors., ; K. Jagadeesan v. Union of India, ; Union of India and Ors. v. N.Y. Apte and Ors., ; and Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. .
Allahabad High Court Cites 164 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs All India Insurance Employees' ... on 26 July, 1988

30. It has, however, been urged by respondents No. 1 and 2 that a change in the channel of promotion is a change in the conditions of service. They cited in support the decision in the case of Reserve Bank of India, Bombay v. C. T. Dighe reported in 1981(2) LLJ 292, This case pertains, inter alia, to Section 33(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court held that a change in the chance of promotion pending reference was not a change in service conditions under Section 33(1)(a). This decision has no application here.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Amar Pratap Bharti vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 8 September, 1998

In the case of Reserve Bank of India (supra) also, it has been found that the dispute pending related to promotion and the action complained proposed to alter condition for promotion and the complaint of the workman was not accepted on the ground that as a result of alteration complained against, only the chance of promotion had been affected but not the right to be considered for promotion.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Budge Budge Amalgamated Mills Ltd. (No. ... on 1 August, 1988

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner issued instructions to the Income-tax Officer to grant the allowance. The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee was not entitled to the allowance because the instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes had been withdrawn. On a reference, it was held that the conclusion of the Tribunal was the result of a misconception. Circular No. 189 ([1976] 102 ITR (St.) 90), dated January 30, 1976, made it clear that only a part of Circular No. F. 10/49/65-ITA, dated October 14, 1965, which contained certain general instructions was withdrawn and that the other parts of that, circular which were not in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. C1T [1970] 77 ITR 512 remained intact, The case of the assessee came under para 1 (c) of the Circular No. F. 10/ 49/65 which provided that where there was no deliberate contravention of the provisions, the Income-tax Officer could condone genuine deficiencies subject to the same being made good by the assessee through the creation of adequate additional reserve in the current year's books in which the assessment is framed. Further, the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued specific instructions in exercise of its power under section 119 of the Act. The assessee was, therefore, entitled to development rebate in the assessment for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69,
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Howrah District Central Co-Operative ... vs Howrah District Central Co-Operative ... on 15 May, 2002

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents contended before this Court that transfer is a part and parcel of the service condition which has been issued in January, 2002, when one has joined and another has taken leave. Such condition of transfer has been incorporated in the appointment letters being the statutory obligation as per Rule 108 of the said Rules as above. Thus, there is no question of change of condition of service. He has cited a judgment in Reserve Bank of India v. C. T. Dighe, , wherein the Supreme Court said that the promotion is not an alteration of service under Section 33(1)(a) of the said Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - A Lala - Full Document
1   2 Next