Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)
Raja Ram vs State on 21 December, 1956 cites

Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953

In this connection reference may be made to the case of Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India, 1953 Section C. R., 655 : (AIR 1953 SC 250) (A). In this case after dealing with the history of Article 311 of the Constitution it was held by the Supreme Court that "there is a distinction drawn in Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules between removal and dismissal. The removal does not disqualify from future employment and the dismissal is one which ordinarily disqualifies persons from future employment. In Rule 49 it is further provided that the discharge of a person engaged under contract, in accordance with the terms of his contract, does not amount to removal or dismissal within the meaning of this rule- These terms are used in the same sense in Article 311.'' The Article therefore has no application to the case where the services are terminated in accordance with the terms of the contract.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 167 - V Bose - Full Document

Shyam Lal vs 1. The State Of Uttar Pradesh2. The Union ... on 30 March, 1954

The other case to which reference may be made is the case of Shyam Lal v. State of U. P. and Union of India, (1955) S. C. R. 26 : (AIR 3954 SC 369) (B). In that case their Lordships were considering the question of termination of service brought about by compulsory retirement. Reference may be made to the following observations at page 41 (of SCR) : (at p. 374 of AIR) of the report : -
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 225 - Full Document

Bidi Supply Co vs The Union Of India And Others on 20 March, 1956

In this connection reliance was placed on the case of Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India. 1956 S. C. R. 267 : ( (S) AIR 1956 SC 479) (D) particularly on the observations made by Bose, J, In that case; the constitutionality of Section 5 (7) (A) of the Income-tax Act was involved. The majority of the learned Judges allowed the petition on the ground that the order impugned did not come within the purview of Section 5(7) (A), but Mr. Justice Bose went further and held that the provisions of Section 5(7) (A) themselves were unconstitutional as being violative of the guarantee under Article 14 of fhe Constitution. Particular reference may be made to the following observations at page 280 (of SCR): (at p 435 of AIR), of the report: --
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 158 - Full Document
1