Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing S. Srinivasan, Chairman And Chief ... vs All India Bharat Overseas Bank ... on 10 February, 2000

Madha Medical College And Hospital vs Union Of India on 19 July, 2018

11. Admittedly, the Committee report referred to by the 2nd respondent, is not with regard to the non-compliance of Clause 8(3)(1)(c). Now the order is with regard to non-admission in respect of the academic year 2018-19. With regard to the violation of Clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the Regulation, it is useful to refer to a decision of this Court reported in MANU/TN/4201/2011 in Sri Venkateswaran Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Rep.by its Chairman Vs. Union of India, and Others, in which, it is observed as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

Abhay Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 August, 2023

11. Tapas D. Neogy [State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC 685 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1352] had also referred to the judgment of a Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Bharat Overseas Bank v. Minu Publication [Bharat Overseas Bank v. Minu Publication, 1988 MLW (Cri) 106] , 6 W.P. (Cr.) No. 225 of 2023 which had made reference to Sections 451, 452, 453, 456 and 457 of the Code to observe that these provisions seek to reimburse or compensate victims of crime and bring about restoration of the property or its restitution. The provision empowering seizure was necessary to preserve the property for the purpose of enabling the criminal court to pass suitable orders under the aforesaid provisions at the conclusion of the trial. The judgment also refers to restoration of immovable property under certain circumstances dealt with under Section 456 of the Code.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Sh. Dayaram Agarwal, Kanta Agarwal, ... vs Ashok Industries Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 16 June, 2005

16. The petitioners have also submitted that they are not asking for any relief regarding removal/appointment of directors being subject matter of suit filed in civil court at Ahmedabad which has already been mentioned but they are seeking relief for the alleged transfer of 83840 shares by petitioner No. 4 to respondent No. 2 and 3. The petitioners have contended that transfer of 83840 shares is bad as the transfer was done by a person who was no mere on the Board of Directors of petitioner No. 4 i.e. Seema Agarwal and Sarita Agarwal and genuine share scripts are still with petitioner No. 4. The petitioners have relied upon the resignation letter of Seema Agarwal and Sarita Agarwal which has been denied by both of them by way of filing affidavit individually. Now, the question remains whether transfer of 83840 shares was in accordance with provisions of Companies Act, and as well as the Articles of Association of the company. The petitioners have contended that the transfer of shares is illegal as the same is not in accordance with Article 34,35 and 36 of the Articles of Association of the respondent company and the procedure made therein. The respondents in reply have stated that there is no factual foundation in regard to this allegation as no factual averments are found in the petition. The factual contentions cannot be permitted to be made for the first time through oral submissions particularly when the same is not to be found in pleadings and respondent relied on various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muthiah M.ct. v. Controller of E.D. Madra, Banarsi Das and Anr. v. Kanshi Ram and Ors. and S.S. Sharma v. Union Bank of India.
Company Law Board Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By Its ... vs A.U. Gopi on 17 November, 2006

Aggrieved by the said order dated 04.02.2005, the respondent-applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal, by order dated 03.03.2006, allowed O.A. No. 90 of 2006 following the order of the Full Bench of the Mumbai bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in J.S. Kharat v. Union of India 2002 (3) ATJ 276. The Tribunal held that the respondent-applicant was entitled to get his subsistence allowance on the basis of the revised pay scales which came into effect during the suspension period and that the decision of the respondents, (petitioners herein), could not be acted upon. The Tribunal quashed the impugned order dated 04.02.2005 and directed the petitioners herein to pay the respondent-applicant arrears of subsistence allowance on the basis of the revised pay scales within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Union Of India vs R.K.Chopra on 1 February, 2010

7. We notice both the High Court as well as the Tribunal has placed heavy reliance on the order of Full Bench of the tribunal in J.S. Kharat's case (supra) and took the view that the delinquent officer would be entitled to enhanced subsistence allowance on the basis of the upward revision of pay based on the 5th Central Pay Commission Report, implemented by the Revised Pay Rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 39 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

K.Prasanna Kumar vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 14 December, 2009

the case of Railway servant placed under suspension he shall continue to draw subsistence allowance based on existing scale of pay and his pay in the revised scale of pay will be subject to final order on the pending disciplinary proceedings. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid Annexure A-1 in this O.A and relied upon the Annexure A-8 decision of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in J.S.Kharat Vs. Union of India and others (at Full Bench Judgments 2002-2003 page 169). The questions raised in the said O.A was "(a) whether second proviso to rule 6(1) of the Railway Servants (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 and whether the provisions in note 3 to rule 7 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 would imply that the ratios in the cases of Swarnamba, 1988 (2) SLR 541, Khajuria 1991 (3) SLJ 168 and Misra (1993) 24 ATC 248 would apply to government servants under suspension at the relevant time? (b) any other issue considered germane to the issue by the Larger Bench." The decision was that the Government servant during suspension is entitled for subsistence allowance on the basis of revised pay scale where the revised pay scale comes into effect during his suspension period. The operative part of the said order was as under :-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Perumal vs The Director Of School Education on 15 February, 2012

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charged person against whom criminal investigation is pending with regard to misappropriation of scholarship meant for scheduled caste and scheduled tribes students cannot be promoted as Headmaster. He relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in S.Srinivasan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Bharat Overseas Bank Limited vs. All India Bharat Overseas Bank employees union , Chenni and four others reported in 2000 (II) CTC 41 wherein it has been held that an employee of Trade Union have locus standi to file writ petition questioning the appointment of the chairman of the bank and submitted that similarly, as an ex-student the petitioner can maintain the writ petition regarding the appointment of a Headmaster.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

Prakash Chandra Katare vs M/O Defence on 6 September, 2018

9. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the orders dated 15.10.2013 passed by coordinate Bench of Tribunal at Mumbai in OA No.215/2013 in the case of S. Bharathi vs. Union of India. We find that the applicant in the quoted case, had not completed his three years in present posting and there are two more officers working in Mumbai without any transfer for more than 20 years.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madha Medical College And Hospital vs Union Of India on 19 July, 2018

11. Admittedly, the Committee report referred to by the 2nd respondent, is not with regard to the non-compliance of Clause 8(3)(1)(c). Now the order is with regard to non-admission in respect of the academic year 2018-19. With regard to the violation of Clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the Regulation, it is useful to refer to a decision of this Court reported in MANU/TN/4201/2011 in Sri Venkateswaran Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Rep.by its Chairman Vs. Union of India, and Others, in which, this Court observed as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document
1   2 Next