Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.30 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre For ... on 10 February, 1999
In the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra) after referring to various decisions indicated as to when a simple order of termination is to be treated as "founded" on the allegations of misconduct and when complaints could be only as a motive for passing such a simple order of termination."
U.P. State Co-Operative Land ... vs Chandra Bhan Dubey And Ors on 18 December, 1998
In Chandra Bhan Dubey (supra), considering the nature of control of the U. P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. by the State Government and the service conditions of the employees of the bank, the Supreme Court held that the Bank is an instrumentality of the State or an authority as mentioned under Article 12.
Arya Vidya Sabha, Kashi And Anr. vs Krishna Kumar Srivastava And Anr. on 26 February, 1976
15. I have considered the judgments relied upon by Shri Nilmani Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondents. The decisions in Arya Vidya Sabha (supra) and Tekraj Vasandi (supra) do not in the given circumstances of the case, salvage the situation for the respondents. The respondent school thought a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is discharging the essential functions of the State. The nature of control, as is evident from the discussion made above, clearly show that the affairs of the school is being controlled by the State Government through important Government functionaries. Apart from regulating and dictating the policy, the State is also providing monies to the Society. The object of the Society is to impart education. All these features read together clearly suggest that the Society has to be an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution. There is no escape from the conclusion.
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
40. The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia (Ajay Haria v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 ; 1981 SCC (L&S) 258) are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesis, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be - whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State."
S. L. Agarwal vs General Manager, Hindustan Steel Ltd on 19 December, 1969
18. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid submission of Shri Nilamani, learned senior counsel. In my considered opinion, the petitioner accepted conditional offer of appointment and joined the post on being appointed temporarily on probation for a period of two years. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now be allowed to challenge the nature of appointment and his placement on probation. With reference to the decisions in Dr. S.L. Agarwal, Appellant v. The General Manager, Hindustan Steel Ltd., Respondent, AIR 1970 SC 1150, Dr. S. L. Agarwal, Appellant v. The General Manager, Hindustan Steel Ltd., Respondent (1970) 1 SCC 177, State Bank of India, Appellant v. S. Vijaya Kumar, Respondent, AIR 1991 SC 79, Mr. Nilamani, learned senior counsel submitted that the employees not being government servant are not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution and, therefore, are not entitled to pre-decisional hearing.
Inder Pal Gupta vs The Managing Committee, Model Inter ... on 3 May, 1984
Mathew P. Thomas vs Kerala State Civil Supply Corpn. Ltd. & ... on 19 February, 2003
23. The facts and circumstances of the case at hand is almost similar to that in Mathew P. Thomas (supra). The enquiry made by the respondent authority was obviously for assessment of the performance of the petitioner. Materials on record disclose that efforts were made to assess the suitability of the petitioner and he was asked to improve his performance before the order of termination was issued. It cannot be said that the removal of the petitioner from service is for his mis-conduct. The termination, in the instant case, appears to be termination simpliciter.