Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.34 seconds)Section 70 in Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959
C.B. Dhall vs State Bank Of India And Others on 2 September, 1983
This Court in ANNAJI BABAJI v. PATSON AGENCIES, , 1982(1) KLJ 156; STATE OF KARNATAKA v. NAIK, 1984(1) KLC 248 Delhi High Court in C.B. DHALL v. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. , 1984(1) LLJ 537; the Assam High Court in GIRIJA KR. PHUKAN v. STATE OF ASSAM , 1985(3) SLR 432 and the Allahabad High Court in HARISH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FAIZABAD , 1985(3) SLR 305 have laid down the same principle.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987
Article 470 of the Regulations with which the Supreme Court was concerned in Brahm Datt Sharma's case was in the nature of an exception to the general rule that the disciplinary jurisdiction comes to an end with the cessation of employer - employee relationship. Such an exception may be carved out by law, but in the absence of law to this effect, it will not be possible to disregard the well settled general rule.
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
The Special Officer is appointed by the State Government and in the discharge of his duties is subject to the control of the State Government and the Registrar. He exercises all the powers which are vested in him under the Act. In these circumstances, it must be held that the action of the Special Officer appointed under Section 30A of the Act is amenable to Writ Jurisdiction since the action is that of an instrumentality of the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. I am tempted to quote the observations of the Supreme Court in AJAY HASIA v. KHALID MUJIB, . The Court observed:-
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R.T. Rangachari vs Secretary Of State on 19 December, 1933
9. Coming to the first submission urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is by now well settled that the disciplinary control which an employer or master exercises over his employee or servant is incidental to the subsisting employer - employee or master - servant relationship, as the case may be. If that relationship ceases to exist the employer or the master also loses his power of disciplinary control. As early as in the year 1937 the Privy Council in R.T. RANGACHARI v. SECRETARY OF STATE observed:-