S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- karnataka societies registration act, 1960 (17 of 1960) section 9: [n. kumar, j] power of review - in the instant case, the registrar passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. the second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of karnataka societies registration act. it is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. held, there is no provision in the act or the rules to review its own order. therefore, the registrar has no power to review his own order. impugned order is one without jurisdiction. - 2. whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

a. naravana pai, c.j. 1. the petitioners in these three cases were employees of the life insurance corporation. in certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the zonal manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. upon appeal to the managing director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the appellate authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of regulation 46 (2) of the staff regulations of the life insurance corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules governing government.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

A. Naravana Pai, C.J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371799',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
			'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
			'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371799',
		(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'S N Sheshadri and ors Vs Managing Director Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay and anr - Citation 371799 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371799',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967',
		'appellant' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 (17 OF 1960) Section 9: [N. Kumar, J] Power of Review - In the instant case, the Registrar  passed an order dated 24.11.2006 directing the second respondent to change the name of its society. The second respondent was informed that in the event of failing to do the same, action shall be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It is that order which in effect has been reviewed by the second respondent by the impugned order. Held, There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to review its own order. Therefore, the Registrar has no power to review his own order. Impugned order is one without jurisdiction. -  2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-06-08',
		'deposition' => 'Petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. </p><p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.</p><p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.</p><p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..</p><p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;</p><p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and </p><p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. </p><p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.</p><p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371799',
	(int) 1 => 's-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/371799/s-n-sheshadri-vs-insurance-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A. Naravana Pai, C.J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Petitioners in these three cases were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. In certain disciplinary enquiries held against them by the Zonal Manager, they were found guilty of one or other of the charges framed against them, and the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. Upon appeal to the Managing Director, the appeals were dismissed by short orders, suggesting and supporting the case of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority had not applied his mind fully to the facts and circumstances of the case, as he was bound to, in the light of Regulation 46 (2) of the Staff Regulations of the Life Insurance Corporation which are modelled on similar rules contained in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules governing Government servants.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Whatever may be the position regarding the regularity of the original enquiry and infirmities, if any, in the report of the Enquiring Officer, as to which we express no opinion, there appears little doubt that the orders of the Appellate Authority prima facie reveal a grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the Regulation mentioned above and that the petitioners may legitimately feel aggrieved thereby.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. But it is not possible for us to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in view of the clear declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, : (1970)ILLJ32SC and the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court - in Civil Appeal No. 1171 of 1967. D/- 27-4-1971 = (since reported in AIR 1971 SC 211 Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai (where they have approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nilratan Banerjee, (1970) 1 Lab LJ 1 (Call). in which their Lordships have pointed out that the Staff Regulations like those of the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be regarded as imposing any statutory obligation and that therefore any breach of these Regulations is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that there is no right to reinstatement except in three cases, viz..',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'(1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art. 311;',
	(int) 5 => '<p> (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker under industrial Law or by Labour or Industrial Tribunals, and ',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (3) a statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed bv statute'. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>and that the'refore in cases where there is no right to reinstatement, the order of dismissal, however unlawful subsists, because to quash the same would in effect be reinstating the dismissed employee in service.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. The Writ Petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 10
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Service
Court	Karnataka High Court
Decided On	Jun-08-1971
Case Number	Writ Petn. No. 1332 of 1967 and C.W. Nos. 1390 and 2191 of 1967
Judge	A. Narayana Pai, C.J. and ;M.S. Nesargi, J.
Reported in	AIR1972Kant13; AIR1972Mys13
Acts	Constitution of India - Article 226
Appellant	S.N. Sheshadri and ors.
Respondent	Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr.
Appellant Advocate	N. Santhosh Hegde, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	M. Chinnaswamy and ;Srinivasa Iyengar, Advs.
Disposition	Petitions dismissed

S.N. Sheshadri and ors. Vs. Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and anr. - Court Judgment