Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.31 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kodakara Farmers Service Co-Operative vs Neena K.K on 25 January, 2010
A learned Single Judge of this
Court in the decision in Smitha T. Pillai v. Joint Registrar
(General), Co-Operative Societies and Ors. reported in MANU/KE/
1686/2015 [the appeal from which culminated in the decision in
Pannivizha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Case (supra)]
considered the principles of merger and held that as the decision of the
Division Bench in Kodakara Farmers Case (DB) was reversed by the
Apex Court entirely on a different point and it did not rest on the
W.A.No.1016 of 2020 13
interpretation placed on Rule 182(4)(viii) of the Rules the mere
reversal of the said decision would not ipso facto follow that even in
cases where the employer had not taken a conscious decision not to fill
up the vacancies, which arise after the publication of the rank list and
during its period of validity, such vacancies could not be filled up from
the ranked list concerned.
The Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921
Pannivizha Service Co-Operaive Bank ... vs Smitha T. Pillai on 15 September, 2015
A learned Single Judge of this
Court in the decision in Smitha T. Pillai v. Joint Registrar
(General), Co-Operative Societies and Ors. reported in MANU/KE/
1686/2015 [the appeal from which culminated in the decision in
Pannivizha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Case (supra)]
considered the principles of merger and held that as the decision of the
Division Bench in Kodakara Farmers Case (DB) was reversed by the
Apex Court entirely on a different point and it did not rest on the
W.A.No.1016 of 2020 13
interpretation placed on Rule 182(4)(viii) of the Rules the mere
reversal of the said decision would not ipso facto follow that even in
cases where the employer had not taken a conscious decision not to fill
up the vacancies, which arise after the publication of the rank list and
during its period of validity, such vacancies could not be filled up from
the ranked list concerned.
Rakhi Ray & Ors vs High Court Of Delhi & Ors on 1 February, 2010
12. Obviously, one of the contentions of the appellant
against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.11428 of
2020 is that the decisions relied on to dismiss the same including the
one in Rakhi Ray's case (supra) were not applicable to the case on
hand.
Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991
35. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash's case (supra), the very
decision relied on by the appellant. Paragraph 7 of the decision the
Hon'ble Apex Court ,which is relevant in the contextual situation, has
already been extracted in thus judgment.
Section 5 in Kerala High Court Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Indian Bank And Anr. vs R. Jayasree And Anr. on 8 July, 1998
In the decision in Indian Bank v. Jayasree reported in 1998 (2)
KLT 464 a Division Bench of this Court held that a non-joining duty
vacancy is not a fresh vacancy and if an appointee did not join duty the
vacancy had to be treated as a non-joining duty vacancy. Certainly,
one cannot say that a period of two years from the publication of the
list by the Society concerned is required for such a purpose.