Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.64 seconds)
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be ... vs National Seeds Corporation Limited on 31 March, 2011 cites

Bhimsing Sardarsing vs District Supdt. Of Police And Ors. on 25 March, 1982

7.6Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in Bhimsing Sardarsing Vs. District Supdt. of Police & ors., reported in 11982 (2) GLR p.410. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stresses on the observations of the Court in the said decision that if the quantum of penalty assumes disproportionate dimensions, the power exercised by the authority are vitiated.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bhagat Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. on 24 January, 1983

7.7Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors., reported in (1983) 2 SCC 442 was also relied upon. This was a case where the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the negligence on a lowly paid Class IV Government servant did not result into any loss to the Government and keeping in view the nature of conduct, gravity of charge and no consequential loss, penalty of withholding of two increments with future effect was found sufficient to meet with the ends of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 437 - Full Document

B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995

In the decision of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1986 SC 484, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court or the Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. It further observed that if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court, it would appropriately mould the relief, either by directing the disciplinary authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may by itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 2256 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Chairman And Managing Director,United ... vs P.C.Kakkar Chairman And Managing ... on 11 February, 2003

This view has been reiterated in number of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it would not be necessary to repeat and reproduce all of them in this order. However, one may take note of the decision in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank Vs. P.C. Kakkar, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1571, wherein, in paragraphs 11 and 12 following observations have been made.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 428 - A Pasayat - Full Document

H.L. Rathod vs Gujarat Agricultural University And ... on 5 February, 1992

7.2Reliance was placed on the decision of this High Court in the case of H.L. Pandya Vs. Gujarat Agricultural University and ors, reported in 1986 Gujarat Law Herald (U.J) 32. In the said decision this Court observed that "Ordinarily this Court is loath to interfere with the discretion exercised by the authority charged with the duty to impose punishment; but when the punishment appears to be disproportionate to the established guilt, and one which is likely to adversely affect the career of the delinquent, the Court has no alternative but to interfere in the interest of justice."
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1