Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
Sri Chandra Mohan Goyal vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Others on 20 December, 2018 cites

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr vs M/S. Lohia Brass (P) Ltd. & Ors on 25 July, 2006

The judgment rendered in Lohia Brass (Pvt.) Limited (supra) was later on followed by the Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Bonds and Beyonds (India) (P) Ltd. decided on 24.09.2007 reported in (2007) 7 SCC 779. It was again observed that each contravention of peak hours consumption restrictions penalty had to be levied separately. All such violations cannot be read together only because the violations have been recorded in one MRI report, they cannot be considered as one violation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan on 20 November, 1990

Therefore, the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case was made the law with prospective operation i.e. it was made applicable to the orders of punishment passed after 20 November, 1990. The law laid down was not applicable to the orders of punishment passed before that date not withstanding the fact that proceedings out of the same were pending in Courts. After that date, such proceedings had to be decided according to the law prevalent prior to the said date which did not require the authority to supply the copy of the Enquiry Officer's report to the employee. The only exception to this Rule was where the Service Rules with regard to the disciplinary proceedings itself made it obligatory to supply a copy of the report to the employee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 668 - R B Misra - Full Document

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs M/S Bonds & Beyonds (India) (P) Ltd on 24 September, 2007

The judgment rendered in Lohia Brass (Pvt.) Limited (supra) was later on followed by the Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Bonds and Beyonds (India) (P) Ltd. decided on 24.09.2007 reported in (2007) 7 SCC 779. It was again observed that each contravention of peak hours consumption restrictions penalty had to be levied separately. All such violations cannot be read together only because the violations have been recorded in one MRI report, they cannot be considered as one violation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Atam Prakash vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 27 February, 1986

49. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the doctrine of prospective overruling has since been expounded for the interpretation of ordinary statute as well, in Waman Rao Vs. Union of India, 1981 (2) SCC 362 and Atam Prakash Vs. State of Haryana, 1986 (2) SCC 249. The laws passed by the Legislatures of Maharashtra and Punjab were declared ultra-vires but device of prospective overruling was resorted to. Even while applying prospective overruling the Supreme Court has sometimes given benefit to the appellant who approached it challenging the earlier settled position in law and bringing the error to its notice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 140 - O C Reddy - Full Document

S.P. Viswanathan (I) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 March, 1991

50. The direction with regard to the prospective operation of law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan was followed by various Benches of the Supreme Court in S.P. Vishwanathan Vs. Union of India, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 269; Union of India Vs. A.K. Chatterjee, (1993) 2 SCC 191; and Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727. The Supreme Court observed that to reopen all disciplinary proceedings concluded before the law was laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan, would result in grave prejudice to the administration which will far outweigh the benefits to the employees concerned. Therefore, taking into account both the administrative reality and public interest, the law with regard to the furnishing inquiry report as settled in Mohd. Ramzan Khan was specifically made prospective, while still extending the benefit to Mohd. Ramzan Khan.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

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

50. The direction with regard to the prospective operation of law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan was followed by various Benches of the Supreme Court in S.P. Vishwanathan Vs. Union of India, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 269; Union of India Vs. A.K. Chatterjee, (1993) 2 SCC 191; and Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727. The Supreme Court observed that to reopen all disciplinary proceedings concluded before the law was laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan, would result in grave prejudice to the administration which will far outweigh the benefits to the employees concerned. Therefore, taking into account both the administrative reality and public interest, the law with regard to the furnishing inquiry report as settled in Mohd. Ramzan Khan was specifically made prospective, while still extending the benefit to Mohd. Ramzan Khan.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document
1   2 Next