Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)
Masina Hospital vs Standley Willam Sure And Ors on 25 February, 2025 cites

Director, Bcg Vaccine Laboratory, ... vs S. Pandian And Ors. on 24 April, 1996

That the employees were not given due opportunity of defence by not providing them an Advocate once it was found that the Union was not supporting them. That on account of non-provision of an Advocate, Respondents were unable to cross-examine the witnesses being merely Class-IV employees. That they were not paid subsistence allowance or even medical facilities during pendency of the enquiry. He would rely upon judgment of Apex Court in Director BCG Vaccine Laboratory, Madras vs. S. Pandian & Ors. 1 Lastly Mr. Mohite would submit that no prejudice is otherwise caused to the Petitioner- employer on account of passing of impugned orders by the Industrial Court as the Petitioner-employer would have an opportunity of justifying its action by leading evidence before the Labour Court. He would accordingly pray for dismissal of the Petitions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & ... vs Sarvesh Berry on 9 December, 2004

2004 SCC (L&S) 1011] , Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sarvesh katkam Page No. 29 of 32 ::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2025 22:22:39 ::: k 30/32 19 wp 8816.24 J group 9 as.doc Berry [Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 SCC 471 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1605] and Uttaranchal RTC v. Mansaram Nainwal [Uttaranchal RTC v. Mansaram Nainwal, (2006) 6 SCC 366 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 159 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996

We may also state that there is yet another line of cases as in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364] , Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P., (1996) 5 SCC 460] that even in relation to statutory provisions requiring notice, a distinction is to be made between cases where the provision is intended for individual benefit and where a provision is intended to protect public interest. In the former case, it can be waived while in the case of the latter, it cannot be waived.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 1234 - B P Reddy - Full Document

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 July, 1999

(M.C. Mehta case [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237] , SCC pp. 245- 47, paras 22-23) "22. Before we go into the final aspects of this contention, we would like to state that cases relating to breach of natural justice do also occur where all facts are not admitted or are not all beyond dispute. In the context of those cases there is a considerable case law and literature as to whether relief can be refused even if the court thinks that the case of the applicant is not one of "real substance" or that there is no substantial possibility of his success or that the result will not be different, even if natural justice is followed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 182 - M J Rao - Full Document
1   2 3 Next