Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)
Ajit Kumar Nag vs General Manager (Pj), Indian Oil ... on 6 February, 2004 cites

Needle Industries (India) Ltd., & Ors vs Needle Industries Newey (India) ... on 7 May, 1981

18. Now turning to the Letter of Authorisation, we find that the GM(PJ) was authorised during the period of absence of GM(I/C). The authorisation was couched with the expression "coordinate". Mr. Moitra had attempted to impress upon us that this coordination is not an authorisation for acting as General Manager. Therefore, there was no delegation. The word "coordination" may mean something to us who are outsiders; it might be something more to the insiders, as was held in Needle Industries (India) Ltd. and Ors. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holdings Ltd. and Ors., . But then the function of the Manager is a function of coordination. When the power of coordination is given to an officer subordinate, then it includes delegation of his power to take all such steps as are/or may be required for the purpose of managing the establishment for the time being. Therefore, this authorisation includes the power to take disciplinary action, which the GM(I/C) could have taken. Mr. Moitra had pointed out that GM(PJ) has independent power of disciplinary proceedings against some categories of persons. GM(I/C) is the appellate authority in respect of such disciplinary powers exercised by GM(PJ). But this does not exclude GM(I/C) to confer upon GM(PJ) the disciplinary power exercised by him in his absence through authorisation. Then again the appellate authority in respect of order invoking special procedure is the Director of Refineries since such power is exercised by GM(I/C). Thus, in case if GM(PJ) exercises the power of GM(I/C), the appeal would lie to the Director and not to GM(I/C). Therefore, there is no inconsistency in the Notification dated 12th February 1999, annexure-A to CAN 5331 of 2003 affirmed by the appellant on 30th June 2003.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 317 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Rajasthan S.R.T.C vs Krishna Kant on 23 September, 1993

5. Mr. Arijit Chowdhury, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, Indian Oil Corporation, pointed out that the standing order has no statutory force, relying on The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Krishna Kant, . According to him, the question relating to delegation was not taken before the learned single Judge and as such, a question cannot be permitted to be raised in appeal. According to him, the exercise of special power in this case is not a policy decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 321 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000

23. The provision of Sub-clause (VI) could be exercised only in an appropriate situation. The distinction between emergency power and special power is of no relevance in the present case since the exercise of such power is to be supported by reasons, which we have found against the contention of Mr. Moitra with regard to perversity and mala fide. The circumstances emerging through the reasons given in the order and the detailed report does not lead us to hold that the reasons are perverse or mala fide or that no reasonable man could take such a decision. The allegation that witnesses were examined and that enquiry could be held is of no consequence since the situation was to be assessed at the hour on the spot and upon having so assessed the situation, the authority had taken the decision. The Court is not supposed to sit on appeal with regard to the justification of the reason or the decision. It can only examine whether the decision is perverse or male fide. Having regard to the materials placed before us, it seems that the authority had taken due care to exercise such power and the report indicates that there were reasons which could reasonably lead a reasonable man to take such a decision. The non-supply of detailed report does not affect the decision in view of the fact that the order itself summarised the report, in view of the ratio decided in Satyavir Singh (supra) and that this non-supply does not seem to have prejudiced the petitioner, as was recorded in paragraph 23 in the decision in Aligarh Muslim University (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 604 - M J Rao - Full Document

Satyavir Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc on 12 September, 1985

23. The provision of Sub-clause (VI) could be exercised only in an appropriate situation. The distinction between emergency power and special power is of no relevance in the present case since the exercise of such power is to be supported by reasons, which we have found against the contention of Mr. Moitra with regard to perversity and mala fide. The circumstances emerging through the reasons given in the order and the detailed report does not lead us to hold that the reasons are perverse or mala fide or that no reasonable man could take such a decision. The allegation that witnesses were examined and that enquiry could be held is of no consequence since the situation was to be assessed at the hour on the spot and upon having so assessed the situation, the authority had taken the decision. The Court is not supposed to sit on appeal with regard to the justification of the reason or the decision. It can only examine whether the decision is perverse or male fide. Having regard to the materials placed before us, it seems that the authority had taken due care to exercise such power and the report indicates that there were reasons which could reasonably lead a reasonable man to take such a decision. The non-supply of detailed report does not affect the decision in view of the fact that the order itself summarised the report, in view of the ratio decided in Satyavir Singh (supra) and that this non-supply does not seem to have prejudiced the petitioner, as was recorded in paragraph 23 in the decision in Aligarh Muslim University (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 106 - D P Madon - Full Document

Chairman And Managing Director,United ... vs P.C.Kakkar Chairman And Managing ... on 11 February, 2003

24. The acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case is of no consequence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The ratio decided in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank (supra) helps Mr. Chowdhury and it distinguishes Captain M. Paul Anthony (supra) the decision whereof does not help Mr. Moitra in the facts and circumstances of the case. Inasmuch as disciplinary proceeding is independent of criminal proceeding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 428 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next