Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 253 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Reg. Bank&Anr vs Munna Lal Jain on 16 December, 2004

M.Gowrishankar vs The Deputy General Manager (Sme) on 4 February, 2016

4.11. The learned counsel has further submitted that two judgments relied on by the learned Single Judge, namely, Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank V. P.C.Kakkar, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 and Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank V. Munna Lal Jain, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 84, did not arise out of industrial adjudication and the persons concerned in those judgments are Officers of the Bank, who are not workmen under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act and those persons filed writ petitions questioning the dismissal from service. Further, those persons were dismissed for misappropriation of public money. Hence, he has submitted that those judgments were erroneously relied on by the learned Single Judge.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - D Hariparanthaman - Full Document

Mr. V. Varshith vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2024

Again, in Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain AIR 2005 SC 584 it was held that this court would not interfere with the decision unless it is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or shocks the conscience of the court in the sense that it is an defiance of logic or moral standards; the court would not go into the correctness of the choice open to the person vested with the power to make such choice and the court should not substitute it's decision over that of the said person. The scope of Judicial Review is limited to deficiency in decision making process and not the decision. In the present case, neither is there anything shocking the conscience of the court nor any error pointed out in the decision making process. It is the decision which is said to be erroneous and which adjudication is outside the ambit of exercise of powers of Judicial Review.
Karnataka High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Bhagirathi Samal vs D/O Post on 21 February, 2018

In the aforesaid decision of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank Vs. Munna Lal Jain, Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court have taken strong exception of a misconduct of a Bank employee, which is equally applicable to a postal employee involved in the deposit and withdrawal of depositor's money. By such misconduct, the delinquent employee not only brings defame to himself but does so at the cost of reputation of the Postal Department. If the depositors shall be defrauded, we are afraid common people of the rural area will think thrice before approaching the Post Office for deposit.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Union Of India & Ors. vs Smt.Kamla Bai & Ors on 12 September, 2019

Administrator to take decision, scope of judicial review would remain limited. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision of Administrator. [See (2006) 2 SCC 1 & 165 (Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India), (2004) 4 SCC 714 (State of U.P. vs. Johri Lal), (2004) 11 SCC 213 & 218 (Delhi Development Authority vs. UEE Electricals Engg. (P) Ltd., (2005) 10 SCC 84 & 95 (Damoh Sagar Panna Rural Regional Bank vs. Munna Lal Jain), (2005) 5 SCC 181 (State of NCT of Delhi vs. Sanjeev) and (2006) 8 SCC 200 (Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel)]
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 4 - S Paul - Full Document

I.M. Madiya vs Gujarat Maritime Board, Thro Chief ... on 19 November, 2019

7.10 Similarly for the proposition as regards quantum of penalty, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank & Anr. Vs. Munna Lal Jain reported in (2005)10 SCC 84 and is submitted that the Apex Court in the said case has held that interference by the court in the matter of punishment is called for only when it is so disproportionate so as to shake the Page 17 of 42 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 21 05:57:38 IST 2019 C/SCA/17218/2011 CAV JUDGMENT judicial conscience. It is further submitted that the penalty imposed in the present case commensurates the misconduct and thus the penalty is not such, which would shake the conscience of the court, warranting interference.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next