Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
The Gokak Municipality vs Rajaram Shridhar Kulkarni on 3 July, 1940 cites

The Municipal Borough Of Dhulia vs Ramchandra Bapuji Kale on 13 January, 1937

13. It follows that the plaintiff has no claim to any damages at all. Even if the lower Courts had been right in their view, that is to say, even if it could have been held that the terms of the plaintiff's service were that he was to be employed till the age of fifty-five, the damages have been assessed on a wrong basis. The sum of Rs. 1,584 has been arrived at by taking the pay which the plaintiff would have earned if he had continued in service and deducting from it the amount which the Municipality paid for the services of the plaintiff's successor. The measure of damages in such a case is the actual loss incurred. In actions for wrongful dismissal the plaintiff may recover the wages for the whole unexpired period of service, though if he has obtained or might reasonably have obtained other occupation, this is to be taken into account (see Mayne on Damages, p. 253, Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd edn., Vol. X, para. 169). Here, of course, as we hold that there was no contract to employ the plaintiff for any definite period, those principles do not apply, and if we had awarded damages we should probably have held, as in Municipal Borough of Dhulia v. Ramchmdra Bapuji, that plaintiff would have been entitled to damages for the period of notice only.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Municipal Board vs Sardar Sukha Singh on 23 November, 1936

5. In this second appeal by the Municipality the first point that has been argued is that the plaintiff on the facts alleged and proved could have, no cause of action. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Allahabad High Court, Municipal Board of Shahjahmpur v. Sukha Singh [1937] All. 434. That was a rase in which the Secretary of a Municipality brought an action for a declaration that he had not been legally dismissed and that he was still the servant of the Board and entitled to continue drawing his salary. It was found that there had been certain irregularities in the proceedings because three of the members of the Board had not received timely notice of the meeting at which the services of the Secretary were dispensed with. It was held by the High Court that failure by the Municipality to observe strictly the rules and regulations in the conduct of its business did not afford the plaintiff a ground for maintaining his suit. This case, however, is no authority for the proposition that a breach of the rules would not have entitled the plaintiff to bring a suit for damages for wrongful dismissal. That point was expressly left open in the judgment (see p. 442 of the report). I may note that the Court also declined to make any pronouncement one way or the other on the question whether the plaintiff in that case, who was the Secretary of a Municipality, stood in the same position as a civil servant i.e. a servant of the Crown in respect of liability to be dismissed at pleasure with no right to maintain a suit for damages.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1