Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.36 seconds)Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Surendranagar District Panchayat vs Dahyabhai Amarsinh on 25 October, 2005
26. The present suit was instituted on 13-9-1971.
Respondents No.2 and 3 could not trace the record when
they were directed to do so after the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18-11-1999, i.e., after 28
years of the institution of the suit (30 years from the
date of removal). It is not a case where the documents
or the evidence are available with respondents No.2 and 3
and yet they have refused to produce the documents,
therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Surendranagar District Panchayat vs.
Dahyabhai Amarsinh (supra) and C.Jacob vs. Director of
Geology and Mining and another (supra), an adverse
inference cannot be drawn against respondents No.2 and 3.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. Of Medical Sci. & ... on 5 November, 2001
15. This Court in the said case of Pavanendra
Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical
Sciences, (2002) 1 SCC 520 further held: (SCC
p. 522)
"It cannot be held that the enquiry held
prior to the order of termination turned
the otherwise innocuous order into one of
punishment. An employer is entitled to
satisfy itself as to the competence of a
probationer to be confirmed in service and
for this purpose satisfy itself fairly as
to the truth of any allegation that may
have been made about the employee. A
charge-sheet merely details the
allegations so that the employee may deal
with them effectively. The enquiry report
in this case found nothing more against
the appellant than an inability to meet
the requirements for the post. None of
the three factors catalogued above for
holding that the termination was in
substance punitive exists in the present
case.
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Municipal Committee, Sirsa vs Munshi Ram on 4 February, 2005
In Municipal Committee, Sirsa vs. Munshi Ram, (2005)
2 SCC 382, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after relying on
Krishnadevaraya Education Trust and another vs. L.A.
Balakrishna, (2001) 9 SCC 319, H.F. Sangati vs. Registrar
General, High Court of Karnataka and others, (2001) 3 SCC
117 and Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of
Medical Sciences and another, (2002) 1 SCC 520, has held
in paragraphs 13 to 17 of the report thus:
Krishnadevaraya Education Trust And ... vs L.A. Balakrishna on 15 January, 2001
In Municipal Committee, Sirsa vs. Munshi Ram, (2005)
2 SCC 382, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after relying on
Krishnadevaraya Education Trust and another vs. L.A.
Balakrishna, (2001) 9 SCC 319, H.F. Sangati vs. Registrar
General, High Court of Karnataka and others, (2001) 3 SCC
117 and Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of
Medical Sciences and another, (2002) 1 SCC 520, has held
in paragraphs 13 to 17 of the report thus:
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs Arunkumar Madhavrao Sinddhaye & Anr on 31 October, 2006
33. Yet again in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs.
Arunkumar Madhavrao Sinddhaye and another, (2007) 1 SCC
283, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying on several of its
earlier decisions, has held in paragraphs 14, 16 and 17
of the report thus: