Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
Managing Committee, K.D. Jain Shikshan ... vs Kaushal Kishor Rathi S/O Shri Hotilal ... on 21 May, 2019 cites

A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak - (1988) 2 SCC 602 held that the per- incurium are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or some authority binding on the Court concerned so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong.
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 1309 - S Mukharji - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011

If a decision has been given per in curiam, the Court can ignore it. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, held that "Incuria" literally means "carelessness". In practice per incuriam is taken to mean per ignoratium. The Courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. Thus the "quotable in law", is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, in ignoratium of a Statute or other binding authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 995 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Rajasthan Welfare Society vs Director Primary And Secondary ... on 3 March, 1998

(27 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] It is argued that Rule 82 of the Rules of 1993 provides that the employees of aided institutions shall be entitled to gratuity as admissible under the Act of 1972 as amended from time to time. The aforesaid provisions will have to be therefore interpreted in the manner that after appointment of the respondents with the Government under the Rules of 2010, relationship of master and servant between the management of the aided educational institutions and the respondents-employees stood terminated and those employees would be entitled to claim not only the gratuity but also the leave encashment directly from the respective grant in aid educational institution. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in Rajasthan Welfare Society Vs. Director, Primary & Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner & 11 Others, 1998 (3) WLC (Raj.) Page 360, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the appellants are under legal obligation to make payment of gratuity and leave encashment directly to the respondents who were their employees and worked against the sanctioned aided posts prior to their appointment with the State Government.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Paul Enterprises & Ors vs Rajib Chatterjee & Co. & Ors on 13 January, 2009

In Paul Enterprises and Others Vs. Rajib Chatterjee and Company and Others - (2009) 3 SCC 709, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where an advertisement was issued by the State of West Bengal inviting applications for grant of excise licence for country spirit shops from unemployed youth. Appellant no.1, a partnership firm of appellants no.2 and 3, applied therefor. The respondent no.1, a partnership firm of respondents no.2 and 3, also applied for allotment of the licence for country spirit shop. While appellant no.1 was placed at serial no.3, the respondent no.1 was placed at serial no.2. The candidature of respondent no.1 was objected to by the appellants, inter alia, contending that respondents no.2 and 3 were not "unemployed youth" within the meaning of the said advertisement and two locations of the liquor shops proposed by them were not conducive therefor. The District Magistrate, being the licensing authority, directed an enquiry to be held. The enquiry officer, in his report, inter alia, opined that whereas respondent no.2 carried on seasonal business in paddy, til, potatoes, etc. the respondent no.1 carried on business with his brother. The Additional District Magistrate (Excise), however, disagreed with the said view taken by the enquiry officer. The allotment of the (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:07 AM) (45 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] country spirit shop was made in favour of the respondent no.1. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed by the Single Bench and an intra court appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent was allowed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench was satisfied that the respondents were to be considered as "unemployed youth" in terms of the advertisement. The Supreme Court, in those facts, held that in such a situation "the interpretation clause should be given a contextual meaning", and in para 24 and 32 of the report held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 71 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sr. Senior Superintendent Of Post ... vs Gursewak Singh on 15 March, 2019

The Supreme Court in a recently delivered judgment dated 15.03.2019 in Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Vs. Gursewak Singh and Others - Civil Appeal No.3150/2019, dealing with a case where the respondent was engaged as Gramin Dak Sewak, i.e., an Extra-Departmental Agent, to work on a part-time basis in the Postal Department, resigned from the said part-time job in 2014. He then approached the Controlling Authority-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, seeking gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The stand of the Department was that he was not entitled to ex- gratia gratuity under the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 as he had voluntarily resigned from the job. The Rules of 2011 have separate provision for payment of (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:02:07 AM) (42 of 47) [SAW-430/2019] Gratuity to the Extra-Departmental Agent, and therefore he is not an employee under the Act of 1972. The Controlling Authority- cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner allowed his claim. The department filed an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act of 1972 before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The writ petition filed by the Department against the aforesaid orders before the High Court, was also dismissed by the Single Bench and the appeal, preferred thereagainst, was also dismissed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court, against the backdrop of these facts held that while Rule 6(13) of the same Rules provides that no gratuity is payable if an Extra-Departmental Agent quits the agency by way of resignation on his own, except on medical ground, and since the respondent tendered resignation in 2014 and appellant accepted his resignation on 28.04.2014 and passed an order under Rule 6(13) permitting him to quit the service, as a consequence, he became disentitled to payment of gratuity under the Statutory Rules, 2011. The Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1972 which states that "Gratuity shall be payable to an employee" and further considered the provisions of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972, which specifically excludes persons who are governed by any Act, or Rules providing for payment of Gratuity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 67 - I Malhotra - Full Document
1   2 Next