Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.6571/1998 17th April, 2015 % SHRI R.L. SAHI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajiv Bakshi, Advocate. Versus SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who was an employee of the respondent no.1/Syndicate Bank and worked as Chief Manager/Assistant General Manager of the respondent No.1/Bank at Asaf Ali Road Branch, New Delhi and as Divisional Manager (DM) at Chandigarh Branch, impugns the orders passed by the departmental authorities imposing the punishment of dismissal from services of the petitioner.2. There were three charges against the petitioner. The first charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner while working in the Asaf Ali Road Branch, New Delhi of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Mewar Railway Staff & Trolley Contractor Sangh versus Union of India & Anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.697/2011 Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Date of Order: 16th July, 2014. PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA, J. Mr.J.P.Joshi, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Siddharth Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.Kamal Dave, for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT: The matter comes up for final disposal at admission stage as per orders passed by this Court on 26th of May 2014. Heard learned counsel for the parties. On 26th of May 2014, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request seeking permission of the Court [2].to withdraw the writ petition. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was opposed by learned counsel for the respondents and thereupon following order was passed: Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this writ petition but learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CR No.1864 of 2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (237) CR No.1864 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:17.01.2014 Vidya Mahankali Rao ......Petitioner Versus Sandeep Dutt and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 17.11.2012 whereby application moved by him under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondents had been given the possession of the property as caretaker. Suit for mandatory injunction had been filed by the petitioner that the defendants be got removed from the suit property and decree of permanent injunction has also been sought restraining the defendants from removing any article from the suit Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.23 10:29 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.6637/2001 10th October, 2013 % K.S. KATHURIA Through: ......Petitioner Mr. N.K.Vohra and Mr. Jitender Vohra, Advocates. VERSUS STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Vishnu Mehra and Ms. Sakshi Mittal, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed by one Sh. K.S.Kathuria who has been dismissed from services in terms of the orders passed by the disciplinary authorities of the respondent no.1-State Bank of Patiala. Petitioner seeks quashing of the orders of the departmental authorities; of the disciplinary authority dated 6.3.2000 and the appellate authority dated 12.12.2001.2. Before I turn to the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner, it has to be noted that the petitioner disputed the content of the charge sheet, however, during the enquiry proceedings petitioner gave a specific written statement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. This appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code for short) is filed by the original plaintiffs with original defendants No.2,5 and 6 against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1997 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1988 whereby the learned appellate Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 525 of 1979 dated 30th July, 1988. The suit was filed by the appellants No.1 and 2 for recovery of possession of the suit property from the respondent No.1 (Original defendant No.1). For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Judge. 2. The case of the plaintiffs in their suit was that the defendant No.1 was employed as watchman to look after the trust properties including the hospital and nursing home run by plaintiff no.1, that to fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
JUDGMENT 1. The Trial Court has dismissed the appellant's suit for possession and mesne profits relating to property bearing No.E-318, East of Kailash, New Delhi which is under challenge in this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the appellant and respondent nos.1 and 2 are referred to by their ranks in the suit as plaintiff, defendant nos.2 and 3 respectively. Mohinder Kaur was defendant No.1 in the suit. 2. The dispute between the parties relate to the first, second and terrace floors of property bearing No.E-318, East of Kailash, New Delhi, hereinafter referred as “the suit property‟. The suit property is built over leasehold plot measuring 125 sq. yards which was originally allotted to Darshan Kaur. Darshan Kaur sold the said plot to the plaintiff on 19th April, 1973 vide construction agreement dated 19th April, 1973 accompanied by General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff's nominee, T.S. Chadha. The plaintiff constructed a three storey building over the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 10.8.1998 dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for possession and mesne profits with respect to the suit property bearing no. C-11, Adarsh Nagar Extension, Azadpur, Delhi admeasuring 200 sq. yds. 2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that he purchased the suit property on 8.12.1966 by means of a registered sale deed from Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. Subedar Major Jaswant Singh had purchased the suit property by means of a registered sale deed on 30.7.1966 from M/s Capital Housing Private Ltd. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that there was a requirement of safeguarding this property inasmuch as, he was living in Narela, a separate area from where the suit property is situated, and therefore, when he went to the suit property in the year 1984, he was approached by the defendant no.1/respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2012SC2010
DALVEER BHANDARI J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. These two appeals arise out of cross suits filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 1973 of 2002 and S.A. No. 869 of 2009 dated April 20, 2011. In both these appeals, A. Shanmugam is the appellant and Ariya Kshatriya Raja Kulavamsa Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalana Sangam is the respondent which for convenience hereinafter is referred to as the Society.4. The property in question belonged to one, Muthu Naicker, who dedicated the suit land for construction of a Dharamshala. In the southern part of India, it is called as choultry. A Dharamshala is commonly known as a place where boarding facilities are provided either free of cost or at a nominal cost. In the instant case, a Dharamshala was to be constructed for the benefit of the Ariya Kshatriya community. The appellants father, Appadurai Pillai was engaged as a Watchman on a monthly salary by the respondent-Society to look after the Dharamshala and in that cap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ShimLC212
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. The present petition has been filed against Annexures P-3, P-5 and P-8, dated 14.7.1998, 14.3.2000 and 2.6.1999, respectively.2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was recruited as Sepoy in the Indian Army on 8.4.1980. Initially, the petitioner was recruited in the Punjab Regiment, but subsequently he was shifted to Intelligence Corps. He was promoted to the rank of Naik on 1.1.1988 and was subsequently promoted to the rank of Havaldar on 1.1.1991. The petitioner was posted to Field Security Company, 8, Mountain Division with effect from 14.1.1997. He was sent to perform his duties with 53 Infantry Brigade. The petitioner was charged under Section 41(1) of the Army Act, 1950 for the alleged misconduct as reproduced below:He at field, on 1 June, 98, when ordered by IC-41475Y Maj NK Airy BM HQ 53 Inf Bde not to proceed on any operation since there were orders from HQ 28 Inf Div to this effect to which he replied that 'Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1408
ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. The petitioner, who is an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited ('SAIL' for short), has sought the following reliefs:(1) the benefit of placement in the higher scale under the service linked promotion scheme with effect from 2-1-1982 instead of 2-7-1982;(2) adjustment of the personal pay of Rs. 286-57 given to the petitioner in lieu of Bonus by fixing the pay at Rs. 2,130+6 (Personal Pay) instead of Rs. 1,890/- in the scale of Rs. 1650-80-2210;(3) for retention in the channel of promotion in the parent department and for promotion in accordance with the seniority in that channel;(4) for promotion of the petitioner and placement above respondents-3 and 4 in the parent channel of promotion of the petitioner and for full monetary benefit with retrospective effect;(5) for other consequential benefits.2. The material facts may be stated as follows:The petitioner joined SAIL as a graduate apprentice in 1960. On completion of training, he was promoted as a J...
Tag this Judgment!