Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.40 seconds)
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. T H Jamadar S/O. Hassan Jamadar on 1 August, 2023 cites

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

10. The contention raised by the applicant with regard to non- consideration of materials which are available and which is brought to the notice when second show cause notice is issued by submitting the explanation at Annexures-A12 dated 28.03.2018. It is settled principle of law that once the explanation is given to- the second show cause notice bringing to the notice that how the report of enquiry officer is perverse and same is without being any legal admissible evidence, on such submission, it is required to consider by recording reasons. This aspect of the matter is considered by this Tribunal in the case of Yuvaraj Naik cited supra and Hon'ble High Court in H.R.Ravindranath Vs. Syndicate Bank (ILR 2005 KAR 2350) in which High Court referring to various decisions i.e., Managing Director, ECII VS. B.Karunakar (AIR 1994 SC 1075), Punjab National Banks ors Vs. Kunj Behari Misra (AIR 1998 SC 2713), State Bank of Patiala & ors VS. S.K.Sharma (AIR 1996 SC 1669), Canara Bank & ors Vs. Sri Debasis Das & others (AIR 2003 SC 2041) and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:8063-DB WP No. 104653 of 2021 (1974 ICR 120) and other cases. Wherein it is held at paras 17 & 18 which reads as hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

Punjab National Bank And Ors.The Chief ... vs Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, Sh. Shanti Prasad ... on 19 August, 1998

10. The contention raised by the applicant with regard to non- consideration of materials which are available and which is brought to the notice when second show cause notice is issued by submitting the explanation at Annexures-A12 dated 28.03.2018. It is settled principle of law that once the explanation is given to- the second show cause notice bringing to the notice that how the report of enquiry officer is perverse and same is without being any legal admissible evidence, on such submission, it is required to consider by recording reasons. This aspect of the matter is considered by this Tribunal in the case of Yuvaraj Naik cited supra and Hon'ble High Court in H.R.Ravindranath Vs. Syndicate Bank (ILR 2005 KAR 2350) in which High Court referring to various decisions i.e., Managing Director, ECII VS. B.Karunakar (AIR 1994 SC 1075), Punjab National Banks ors Vs. Kunj Behari Misra (AIR 1998 SC 2713), State Bank of Patiala & ors VS. S.K.Sharma (AIR 1996 SC 1669), Canara Bank & ors Vs. Sri Debasis Das & others (AIR 2003 SC 2041) and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:8063-DB WP No. 104653 of 2021 (1974 ICR 120) and other cases. Wherein it is held at paras 17 & 18 which reads as hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 929 - Full Document

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

10. The contention raised by the applicant with regard to non- consideration of materials which are available and which is brought to the notice when second show cause notice is issued by submitting the explanation at Annexures-A12 dated 28.03.2018. It is settled principle of law that once the explanation is given to- the second show cause notice bringing to the notice that how the report of enquiry officer is perverse and same is without being any legal admissible evidence, on such submission, it is required to consider by recording reasons. This aspect of the matter is considered by this Tribunal in the case of Yuvaraj Naik cited supra and Hon'ble High Court in H.R.Ravindranath Vs. Syndicate Bank (ILR 2005 KAR 2350) in which High Court referring to various decisions i.e., Managing Director, ECII VS. B.Karunakar (AIR 1994 SC 1075), Punjab National Banks ors Vs. Kunj Behari Misra (AIR 1998 SC 2713), State Bank of Patiala & ors VS. S.K.Sharma (AIR 1996 SC 1669), Canara Bank & ors Vs. Sri Debasis Das & others (AIR 2003 SC 2041) and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:8063-DB WP No. 104653 of 2021 (1974 ICR 120) and other cases. Wherein it is held at paras 17 & 18 which reads as hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 1234 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Canara Bank And Ors vs Shri Debasis Das And Ors on 12 March, 2003

10. The contention raised by the applicant with regard to non- consideration of materials which are available and which is brought to the notice when second show cause notice is issued by submitting the explanation at Annexures-A12 dated 28.03.2018. It is settled principle of law that once the explanation is given to- the second show cause notice bringing to the notice that how the report of enquiry officer is perverse and same is without being any legal admissible evidence, on such submission, it is required to consider by recording reasons. This aspect of the matter is considered by this Tribunal in the case of Yuvaraj Naik cited supra and Hon'ble High Court in H.R.Ravindranath Vs. Syndicate Bank (ILR 2005 KAR 2350) in which High Court referring to various decisions i.e., Managing Director, ECII VS. B.Karunakar (AIR 1994 SC 1075), Punjab National Banks ors Vs. Kunj Behari Misra (AIR 1998 SC 2713), State Bank of Patiala & ors VS. S.K.Sharma (AIR 1996 SC 1669), Canara Bank & ors Vs. Sri Debasis Das & others (AIR 2003 SC 2041) and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:8063-DB WP No. 104653 of 2021 (1974 ICR 120) and other cases. Wherein it is held at paras 17 & 18 which reads as hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 494 - A Pasayat - Full Document

H.R. Ravindranath vs Syndicate Bank Represented By Its ... on 29 October, 2004

10. The contention raised by the applicant with regard to non- consideration of materials which are available and which is brought to the notice when second show cause notice is issued by submitting the explanation at Annexures-A12 dated 28.03.2018. It is settled principle of law that once the explanation is given to- the second show cause notice bringing to the notice that how the report of enquiry officer is perverse and same is without being any legal admissible evidence, on such submission, it is required to consider by recording reasons. This aspect of the matter is considered by this Tribunal in the case of Yuvaraj Naik cited supra and Hon'ble High Court in H.R.Ravindranath Vs. Syndicate Bank (ILR 2005 KAR 2350) in which High Court referring to various decisions i.e., Managing Director, ECII VS. B.Karunakar (AIR 1994 SC 1075), Punjab National Banks ors Vs. Kunj Behari Misra (AIR 1998 SC 2713), State Bank of Patiala & ors VS. S.K.Sharma (AIR 1996 SC 1669), Canara Bank & ors Vs. Sri Debasis Das & others (AIR 2003 SC 2041) and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:8063-DB WP No. 104653 of 2021 (1974 ICR 120) and other cases. Wherein it is held at paras 17 & 18 which reads as hereunder:
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - N Kumar - Full Document
1