Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.38 seconds)M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Ram Lal & Ors on 25 January, 2005
The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its
power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well known
factors. It cannot set aside a well reasoned order only on sympathy or
sentiments. [See Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Others [(2005) 2 SCC
638]; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [2006 (9) SCALE
549]; Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra [2006 (11) SCALE 258];
State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi & Ors. [2006 (13) SCALE 319]; State of
M.P. and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ors. [2007 (12) SCALE 72] and
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi [CA No.576 of
2008 decided on 22.1.2008].
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Amrendra Kumar Mishra on 26 September, 2006
The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its
power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well known
factors. It cannot set aside a well reasoned order only on sympathy or
sentiments. [See Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Others [(2005) 2 SCC
638]; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [2006 (9) SCALE
549]; Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra [2006 (11) SCALE 258];
State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi & Ors. [2006 (13) SCALE 319]; State of
M.P. and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ors. [2007 (12) SCALE 72] and
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi [CA No.576 of
2008 decided on 22.1.2008].
Regional Manager, Sbi vs Mahatma Mishra on 1 November, 2006
The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its
power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well known
factors. It cannot set aside a well reasoned order only on sympathy or
sentiments. [See Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Others [(2005) 2 SCC
638]; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [2006 (9) SCALE
549]; Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra [2006 (11) SCALE 258];
State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi & Ors. [2006 (13) SCALE 319]; State of
M.P. and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ors. [2007 (12) SCALE 72] and
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi [CA No.576 of
2008 decided on 22.1.2008].
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs Ameerbi & Ors on 7 December, 2006
The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its
power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well known
factors. It cannot set aside a well reasoned order only on sympathy or
sentiments. [See Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Others [(2005) 2 SCC
638]; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [2006 (9) SCALE
549]; Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra [2006 (11) SCALE 258];
State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi & Ors. [2006 (13) SCALE 319]; State of
M.P. and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ors. [2007 (12) SCALE 72] and
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi [CA No.576 of
2008 decided on 22.1.2008].
Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad & Ors vs Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead)Thr.Lrs. & ... on 20 January, 2005
In Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad & Ors. v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead)
through LRs & Ors. 2005 (11) SCC 314, this Court noticing Section 58 of
the Indian Evidence Act, held :
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & ... vs Surji Devi on 22 January, 2008
The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its
power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well known
factors. It cannot set aside a well reasoned order only on sympathy or
sentiments. [See Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Others [(2005) 2 SCC
638]; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [2006 (9) SCALE
549]; Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra [2006 (11) SCALE 258];
State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi & Ors. [2006 (13) SCALE 319]; State of
M.P. and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ors. [2007 (12) SCALE 72] and
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi [CA No.576 of
2008 decided on 22.1.2008].
Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 September, 1998
17. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been
complied with, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of
punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The Superior Courts only
in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of
an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction
would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. {[See
Sangeroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1999) 1 SCC 259]}.
The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India also cannot, on the basis of sympathy or sentiment,
overturn a legal order.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of M.P. & Ors vs Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Ors on 10 October, 2007
The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its
power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well known
factors. It cannot set aside a well reasoned order only on sympathy or
sentiments. [See Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Others [(2005) 2 SCC
638]; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [2006 (9) SCALE
549]; Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra [2006 (11) SCALE 258];
State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi & Ors. [2006 (13) SCALE 319]; State of
M.P. and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ors. [2007 (12) SCALE 72] and
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi [CA No.576 of
2008 decided on 22.1.2008].
1