Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre For ... on 10 February, 1999
The Apex Court in re: Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra) in para 19 has observed as under :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (1.27 seconds)Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
This very question was gone into recently in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd.2 and reference was made to the development of the law from time to time starting from Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India3 to the concept of "purpose of enquiry" introduced Shah, J. (as he then was) in State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das and to the seven-Judge Bench decision in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and to post-Samsher Singh case-law. This Court had occasion to make a detailed examination of what is the "motive" and what is the "foundation" on which the innocuous order is based."
Radhey Shyam Gupta vs U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation ... on 15 December, 1998
This very question was gone into recently in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd.2 and reference was made to the development of the law from time to time starting from Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India3 to the concept of "purpose of enquiry" introduced Shah, J. (as he then was) in State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das and to the seven-Judge Bench decision in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and to post-Samsher Singh case-law. This Court had occasion to make a detailed examination of what is the "motive" and what is the "foundation" on which the innocuous order is based."
The State Of Orissa And Another vs Ram Narayan Das on 8 September, 1960
This very question was gone into recently in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd.2 and reference was made to the development of the law from time to time starting from Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India3 to the concept of "purpose of enquiry" introduced Shah, J. (as he then was) in State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das and to the seven-Judge Bench decision in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and to post-Samsher Singh case-law. This Court had occasion to make a detailed examination of what is the "motive" and what is the "foundation" on which the innocuous order is based."
Section 9 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan vs Mehbub Alam Laskar on 22 January, 2008
32. The Apex Court in re : Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 479 has observed that there exists a distinction between motive and foundation. If misconduct is foundation of such order, the same would be bad in law even if appears to be innocuous one. The Apex Court has further observed that only in the event of unsatisfactory performance by the employee the termination of probation would have been held to be justified. However, when the foundation for such an order is not unsatisfactory performance on the part of the employee but overt acts amount to misconduct, an opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned is imperative. In other words if the employee is found to have committed misconduct although an order terminating probation would appear to be innocuous on its face, the same would be vitiated if in effect and substance it is found to be stigmatic in nature.
Article 361 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. Of Medical Sci. & ... on 5 November, 2001
28. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, at the very outset, I am going through the dictum of Apex Court in re: Pavanendra Narayan Verma (supra) being referred by Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate.