Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)
Babu Ram Kashyap vs Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) on 29 April, 2024 cites

Y.K. Singla vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 14 December, 2012

31. The second ground taken by the writ petitioner is that the payment of interest could not be reduced from 10% to 5%. Even on this aspect, the 26 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.K. Sigla vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9087 of 2012, decided on 14.12.2012) and D.D. Tiwari vs. Uttar Haryana Bizli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 7113 of 2014) and Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla & Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785, has consistently held that the rate of interest cannot be reduced once it was granted by the prevalent rules of banking. Hence, in the present case, the petitioners (employees) are entitled for interest at the rate of 7%.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 110 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Beed District Central Co-Operative ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 29 September, 2006

32. The judgment, referred to by the counsel for the Canara Bank, which is Beed District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2006) 8 SCC 514, will not be applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case the Supreme Court was not examining the definitions of special allowances, emoluments, pay and salary of the Bank employees. It was examining the option exercised by an employee of the Bank. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining the provisions of the Banking Regulations, which had been opted by the employee at 27 the time of joining the Cooperative Bank. It was held therein that the employees, thereafter, could not claim the benefit of calculation of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 193 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Paschim Banga Gramin Bank & Ors vs Chinmay Majumdar & Ors on 4 February, 2021

34. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Paschim Banga Gramin Bank and others vs. Chinmay Majumdar & others (F.M.A. 657 of 2020, decided on 04.02.2021) cannot be made applicable in the facts of the present case as the Calcutta High Court in that case was dealing with the definition of 'pay' as per the Regulations with respect to officers and employees in the matter of calculation of gratuity and it was held that once the employee had accepted the entitlement under the Regulations, in that case, they could not claim the benefit of definition of 'pay' which was applicable to officers.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Sinha - Full Document

Madhyanchal Gramin Bank vs All India Gramin Bank Pensioners ... on 7 May, 2019

Even this judgment is not applicable as in this judgment, the Calcutta High Court was not examining the definition of 'pay' for the purpose of calculation of gratuity and this aspect has 28 been considered in detail in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II) W.B. vs. Vivekanand Vidhya Mandir & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6221 of 2011, decided on 28.02.2019), in the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhyanchal Gramin Bank and others vs. All India Gramin Bank Pensioners Organisation Unit (WA Nos.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bank Of Baroda And Anr. vs G.Palani And Ors. on 13 February, 2018

"8. However, in Bank of Baroda v. G.Palani and others, the Apex Court drew a distinction where the aggrieved employees are officers who retired from the Bank in question. It was held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable to such officers. It was held that the Pension Regulations framed under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 are statutory in character. In the circumstances, in view of the definition of average emoluments at Regulation 2(d), Pay at Regulation 2(s) and the provision for calculating pension at Regulation 35, it was held that employees are to be paid pension as provided in the Regulations and no reduction from the same is possible, relying on the provisions of a Joint Note, which has no statutory force, unless the Regulations are appropriately amended. It was held in paragraph 28 of the judgment as follows:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 38 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Rajinder Singh (Dr.) vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 11 April, 2001

In Dr.Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors (2001) 5 SCC 482, this Court had reiterated that the settled position of law is that no government order, notification or circular can be a substitute of the statutory rules framed with the authority of law. In K.Kuppuswamy & Anr.v. State of Tamil Nadu (1998) 8 SCC 469, this Court has observed that statutory rules cannot be overriden by executive orders or executive practice. Merely because the Government had taken a decision to amend the rules, does not mean that the rule stood obliterated. Till the rule is amended, the rule applies."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 63 - Full Document
1