Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.77 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Syed Akbar Ali Syed Ahmad Ali on 7 February, 1964
13. Mr. De, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-decree holders has opposed all the aforesaid contentions advanced by Mr Mitra. According to Mr. De, the dismissal order was on the face of it a nullity as will appear from the fact that his client's predecessor was not given subsistence allowance during the disciplinary proceedings when he was placed under suspension. Mr. De further points out that the first Enquiry Officer appointed by the employer who was a retired District Judge passed specific direction upon the employer to pay subsistence allowance by recording an explicit order that in the absence of such payment, the disciplinary proceedings itself would be invalid. Strangely enough, Mr De continues, the employer did not comply with the direction given by the Enquiry Officer and consequently, the disciplinary proceedings were dropped; but thereafter, the employer without complying with the earlier order of payment of subsistence allowance, appointed one of its loyal employees who was posted in the district of 24-Parganas as a new Enquiry Officer and the said Enquiry Officer without enforcing the earlier order passed by his predecessor for payment of subsistence allowance directed the indicted employee to appear in the fresh proceedings for participation. It appears from the registered letter issued by the second Enquiry Officer, Mr. De proceeded, the same was received by the deceased employee long after the date fixed for enquiry but the second Enquiry Officer was so much prejudiced that without ascertaining whether the suspended employee had received such letter, exparte concluded that the charges against employee had been proved and within two days, recommended order of dismissal which was approved by the Management. Mr. De submits that from the aforesaid fact it is clear that the order of dismissal was a nullity and once it is held to be nullity, his clients were not required to pray for declaration that such order was a nullity as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sayed Quamar Ali reported in 1967 SLR 228. Mr. De submits that the said decision was given by a Bench consisting of five Judges and as such, the same is still the law of the land. Mr. De submits that if there was no necessity of praying for specific declaration that the order of dismissal was wrong, in such a situation, the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation simply because the same was filed beyond three years from the date of communication of the order of dismissal as the predecessor of the plaintiff was due to retire in normal course in the month of December, 2002.
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar on 21 August, 1991
In this connection, Mr. Mitra, has, on the other hand, placed reliance upon a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Gurdev Singh, , decided by a Bench consisting of three-Judges where the earlier decision in the case of Quamar Ali (supra), was considered and distinguished. In the said decision, it was held that a suit for declaration that the order of dismissal from service of an employee was ultra vires, unconsitutional, against the principles of natural justice and void and that the delinquent continued to be in service must be subject to the limitation period prescribed in the Limitation Act and the period of three years starts running from the date of passing of the dismissal order or where departmental appeal or revision was filed, from the date of dismissal of such appeal or revision. It was further held that if the suit is filed after the lapse of the period of three years so computed, it would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Indra Bhanu Gaur vs Committee, Management Of M.M.Degree ... on 7 November, 2003
In the case before us, we have already pointed out that on the prayer of the delinquent alleging non-payment, even the first Enquiry Officer dropped the proceedings; therefore, in the fact of the present case, the principles laid down in the case of Indra Bhanu Gaur (supra), cannot have any application.
Union Of India And Ors vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr on 5 February, 2004
In the case of Union of India and Ors. v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and Anr. , it was held by the Supreme Court that the phrase "other cause of like nature" appearing in Section 14 of the Limitation Act should be given liberal interpretation and the said phrase is wide enough to cover cases where the defects are not merely jurisdictional strictly so called but covers any circumstance, legal or factual, which inhibits entertainment or consideration by the Court of the dispute on merits and institution of a writ petition in respect of money claimed was given benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the said case. In the case before us, we have also held that the respondents should get the exclusion of the period spent by their predecessor as also the period spent by plaintiff No. 1 in filing the second writ application which failed for want of jurisdiction.