Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.32 seconds)
The Secretary And Correspondent And vs R.G.Abirami Devi .. 1St on 22 December, 2020 cites

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

23.In support of his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel referred to the decision State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K.Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364], which explains the doctrine of test of prejudice and merely because it is stated that there is no notice, no opportunity, no hearing, it will not vitiate the proceedings and this very aspect has to be looked at from the point of view of the directory and mandatory provisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 1234 - B P Reddy - Full Document

M.H. Devendrappa vs The Karnataka State Small ... on 17 February, 1998

Reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.H.Devendrappa vs. Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation [(1998) 3 SCC 732] to justify the action of the Management in dismissing the appellant therein from service on account of the detriment caused by the first respondent therein as teacher in the institution and involved third parties etc., and making allegation against the institution would 28/134 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.No.687 of 2019 entail the Management to pass an order of dismissal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 25 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005

25.It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that indiscipline in an educational institution should not be tolerated and a teacher, whose conduct should be an example for the pupils, cannot be shown any leniency in cases of indiscipline. To support such argument, reliance was placed on Hombe Gowda Educational Trust vs. State of Karnataka [(2006) 1 SCC 430], Vice-Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University vs. Craig Macleod [(2012) 11 SCC 275] and Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan vs. J.Hussain [(2013) 10 SCC 106].
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 163 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Bombay (Now Maharastra) vs Narul Latif Khan on 22 February, 1965

It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in the impugned order, the decisions of the Hon'ble 29/134 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.No.687 of 2019 Supreme Court in State of Bombay vs. Narul Latif Khan [AIR 1966 SC 269], Mathura Prasad vs. UoI [(2007) 1 SCC 437], M.V.Bijlani vs. UoI [(2006) 5 SCC 88], Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank [(2009) 2 SCC 570] and Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. vs. Santhosh Kumar [(2006) 11 SCC 147] have been referred to, which were not relied on by the Management, nor by the first respondent. It is submitted that each of the decisions, which have been referred to in the impugned order, is factually distinguishable and not applicable to the case on hand and that the Management had no opportunity to put forth their submission in respect of those decisions, which have been referred to in the impugned order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 27 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

M.V. Bijlani vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2006

It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in the impugned order, the decisions of the Hon'ble 29/134 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.No.687 of 2019 Supreme Court in State of Bombay vs. Narul Latif Khan [AIR 1966 SC 269], Mathura Prasad vs. UoI [(2007) 1 SCC 437], M.V.Bijlani vs. UoI [(2006) 5 SCC 88], Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank [(2009) 2 SCC 570] and Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. vs. Santhosh Kumar [(2006) 11 SCC 147] have been referred to, which were not relied on by the Management, nor by the first respondent. It is submitted that each of the decisions, which have been referred to in the impugned order, is factually distinguishable and not applicable to the case on hand and that the Management had no opportunity to put forth their submission in respect of those decisions, which have been referred to in the impugned order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 837 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008

It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in the impugned order, the decisions of the Hon'ble 29/134 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.No.687 of 2019 Supreme Court in State of Bombay vs. Narul Latif Khan [AIR 1966 SC 269], Mathura Prasad vs. UoI [(2007) 1 SCC 437], M.V.Bijlani vs. UoI [(2006) 5 SCC 88], Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank [(2009) 2 SCC 570] and Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. vs. Santhosh Kumar [(2006) 11 SCC 147] have been referred to, which were not relied on by the Management, nor by the first respondent. It is submitted that each of the decisions, which have been referred to in the impugned order, is factually distinguishable and not applicable to the case on hand and that the Management had no opportunity to put forth their submission in respect of those decisions, which have been referred to in the impugned order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1059 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Director (Marketing) Indian Oil Corpn. ... vs Santosh Kumar on 23 May, 2006

It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in the impugned order, the decisions of the Hon'ble 29/134 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.A.No.687 of 2019 Supreme Court in State of Bombay vs. Narul Latif Khan [AIR 1966 SC 269], Mathura Prasad vs. UoI [(2007) 1 SCC 437], M.V.Bijlani vs. UoI [(2006) 5 SCC 88], Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank [(2009) 2 SCC 570] and Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. vs. Santhosh Kumar [(2006) 11 SCC 147] have been referred to, which were not relied on by the Management, nor by the first respondent. It is submitted that each of the decisions, which have been referred to in the impugned order, is factually distinguishable and not applicable to the case on hand and that the Management had no opportunity to put forth their submission in respect of those decisions, which have been referred to in the impugned order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 130 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1   2 Next