Shri Naresh Kumar vs Shri Hiroshi Maniwa & Ors on 5 November, 2015
In Naresh Kumar Vs. Hiroshi Maniwaand & Ors
(supra) it was held that :.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.42 seconds)M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 1 December, 2011
Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central
Excise, Gauhati and Others has held that the Principles of
Natural Justice would mean natural sense of what is right and
wrong and the Hon'ble court has even termed it as "moral
naturalism."
S. S. Shetty vs Bharat Nidhi, Ltd on 17 September, 1957
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages on account
of mental stress, emotional trauma and harassment on
account of his illegal termination and consequential
unemployment? If yes, quantum thereof? OPP
As far as the claim for damages for mental stress,
trauma etc on account of illegal termination is concerned, the
same is in the teeth of the judgment in S.S. Shetty vs.
Bharat Nidhi Ltd, SDU Travels Pvt. Ltd Vs. Vipin
Sharma and Naresh Kumar Vs. Hiroshi Maniwa and &
Ors (supra), wherein it was held that in cases of contract of
private employment, no compensation can be claimed in
respect of the injury done to the servant's feelings by the
circumstances of his dismissal nor in respect of extra difficulty
of finding work resulting from those circumstances.
Kailash Chand vs Dtc on 2 February, 2015
53. Not only this, in Kailash Chand v. DTC case (supra),
the Hon'ble court had held that a probationer Civil Servant,
had no right to the post as he is not confirmed and he can be
terminated without any enquiry. Yet the court held that if the
allegations are of misconduct etc, an order of termination
would be bad, if it is without enquiry, as it is stigmatic and
evil consequences will follow.
Sdu Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs Vipin Sharma on 4 May, 2017
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages on account
of mental stress, emotional trauma and harassment on
account of his illegal termination and consequential
unemployment? If yes, quantum thereof? OPP
As far as the claim for damages for mental stress,
trauma etc on account of illegal termination is concerned, the
same is in the teeth of the judgment in S.S. Shetty vs.
Bharat Nidhi Ltd, SDU Travels Pvt. Ltd Vs. Vipin
Sharma and Naresh Kumar Vs. Hiroshi Maniwa and &
Ors (supra), wherein it was held that in cases of contract of
private employment, no compensation can be claimed in
respect of the injury done to the servant's feelings by the
circumstances of his dismissal nor in respect of extra difficulty
of finding work resulting from those circumstances.
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969
The judgments A.K. Kripak vs. UOI, Dharampal
Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central
Excise, Gauhati and Others and Kailash Chand Vs. DTC case
(supra) related to the cases of public employment. However,
no straight jacket formula has been laid down to ascertain the
applicability of the Principles of Natural Justice to the facts of
a particular case. The Hon'ble Court have not confined the
applicability of Principles of Natural Justice to any particular
category of cases. It has been held in the above judgments that
Principles of Natural Justice operate in areas not covered by
validly made laws. It has also been held that when a
grievance is raised before the court that the Principles of
Natural Justice are not complied with then the Courts have to
examine whether in the facts of the case Principles of Natural
Justice were to be followed or not. It has time and again been
held that Principles of Natural Justice are a duty to act fairly
and to ensure procedural fairness. Further, it has been held that
merely because following of Principles of Natural Justice
would not change the ultimate decision, the authorities would
not have the liberty to jump the applicability of Principles of
Natural Justice. Further, the Hon'ble Court in Dharampal
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Vijayakumaran C.P.V vs Central University Of Kerala on 28 January, 2020
79. The judgment in Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V vs
Central University Of Kerala & Ors (supra) is not
applicable to the facts of the case as in the instant case, no
document containing stigmatic allegations is referred to in the
termination letter dt 07.10.2016.
Section 99 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Major General M.S.Ahluwalia vs Tehelka.Com And Ors. on 21 July, 2023
89. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the
defendants no. 6 & 7 have also intentionally harmed the
reputation of the plaintiff and have defamed him and thus
the plaintiff is entitled for damages for the defamation. Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon para 29 to 31 of the
plaint in support of his contentions. The same are
reiterated in para 2(xxiv) to 2(xxix) of this judgment. The
Ld. Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment cited as
M.S. Ahluwalia Vs. Tehalka.com-2023 SCC Online
Del 4275 to submit as to what acts constitute defamation.