Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC3063; JT2009(8)SC661; (2009)IVLLJ31SC; (2009)13SCC374
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No. 544/1998 reversing the order dated 15.12.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6126 of 1995 and restoring the award dated 23.12.1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras in ID No. 65 of 1991. The case has a chequered history and has come up after several rounds of litigations.2. The International Airport Authority of India (IAAI for short), the appellant herein, was established under the International Airports Authority Act, 1971. It established a cargo complex at Madras in the year 1978. Under an agreement dated 30.1.1978, it granted a licence to a private company known as M/s. Airfreight Private Ltd. (referred to as `Airfreight') to be its ground handling agent in respect of export, import and transshipment cargo consignments. Under the said agreement, Airfreight was to receive payment from the owne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6975 OF2009Jagdish Lal Gambhir ....Appellant Versus Punjab National Bank & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th July, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in FMA No.388 of 2001.2. The issue for consideration is whether the termination of the services of the appellant Gambhir was in any manner vitiated. In our opinion, the question requires to be answered in the negative and we uphold the judgment and order of the Division Bench confirming the dismissal of the writ petition filed by Gambhir.3. Gambhir was working as an Assistant General Manager in the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited. This bank was amalgamated with the Punjab National Bank on 19th December, 1986. On amalgamation, the services of 28 or 29 officials of the Hindustan Commercial Bank including Gambhir were not taken over by the Punjab Na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC983; [1999(81)FLR687]; JT1999(1)SC396; 1999(2)KLT20(SC); 1999(1)SCALE421; (1999)3SCC60; [1999]1SCR532; (1999)2UPLBEC1048
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Leave granted.2. This Civil Appeal has been filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in M.A.T. No. 1690 of 1997 dated 23.4.1998. By that judgment, the Division Bench affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.5.1997 in W.P. No. 8484(W) of 1997 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, a probationer and refusing to quash the order dated 30.4.1997, terminating his probation.3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:The appellant was appointed on 11.1.1995 as Office Superintendent in the respondent organisation, namely, Sri Satyendra Nath Bose National center for Basic Sciences, Calcutta. The order of appointment dated 11.1.1995 stated that the appellant would be on probation for one year and that he might be confirmed after one year provided the administration was satisfied with the quality of the appellant's service. His pay scale was to be in the scale of Rs. 1400-1600-2300-26...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC937; [1982(45)FLR289]; 1982LabIC1234; (1982)IILLJ180SC; (1982)2SCC376; 1982(2)SLJ259(SC)
1. There is no substance in this appeal which has been preferred by the State of U. P. against the judgment and decree dated 25th Nov., 1969 of the High Court of Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 2226 of 1969.2. The plaintiff Mohd. Sharif (since deceased) was working as a Head Constable of the Daksiti Guard at P.S. Kakwan District Kanpur. On 22nd Jan., 1955 he was served with a charge-sheet under Section 7 of the Police Act calling upon him to submit his explanation thereto; he submitted the explanation on the following day. After holding the department disciplinary inquiry against him the inquiry officer submitted his report which was accepted and ultimately he was dismissed from service by an order dated 3rd June, 1955. After departmental appeal and revision to higher authorities failed, the plaintiff filed a suit challenging his dismissal on the ground that the said order was illegal and void as no proper inquiry was held against him and no reasonable opportunity was given to him to de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC609; [1999(81)FLR475]; JT1998(8)SC585; (1999)ILLJ432SC; 1998(6)SCALE562; (1999)2SCC21; [1998]Supp3SCR558; (1999)1UPLBEC265
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant questioning the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 10-12-97 (Lucknow Bench) which reversed the Judgment of the Administrative Tribunal III, Lucknow in claim No. 686 of Till of 1977 dated 3-12-80.3. The appellant was working in the respondent Corporation as Senior Accountant from 27-7-1970. On 17-7-1973, he was appointed as Branch Manager and posted at the Meerut Division of the respondent Corporation and transferred to various places. He was posted at Faizabad as Branch Manager on 3-10-1975 and while he was working there, he received a letter dated 12-1-1976 from the Managing Director on 15-1-1976 alleging that one person by name Jai Chandra Lal complained that the appellant had fraudulently taken Rs. 2000/- from him and that the appellant should therefore offer his explanation. The appellant denied the allegation and submitted his explanation on 22-1-1976. Thereafter no disciplinary inqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant, who had all along been appearing in person, was represented by counsel, Mr. Vijay K. Aggarwal, at the time of final hearing of the appeal, which is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.M. No.13709 of 2007, dismissing the appellant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.9 dated 10.1.2007 of P.S. Patiala, filed by his wife, the respondent No.2 herein. 3. The appellant's marriage was solemnized with the respondent No.2 on 27.11.2004 as per Sikh rites. After their marriage, the couple went to Gujarat where the appellant was employed with Patronet L.N.G. Limited in District Bharuch, Gujarat, and lived together as husband and wife, though no child was born out of the said wedlock. Subsequently, differences arose between the appellant and the respondent No.2 which resulted in a complaint being made by the respondent No.2 on 12.5.2006 to the Senior Superintendent o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1334 OF 201.[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2070 of 2012]. Rajendra Yadav .. Appellant Versus State of M.P. & Others .. Respondents JUDGMENT K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant, a Police Constable, while he was working in the police station Rahatgarh, District Sagar along with A.S.I. Lakhan Tiwari and Head Constable Jagdish Prasad Tiwari stated to have received an amount of Rs.3,000 for not implicating certain persons involved in Crime No.4 of 2002 charged under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506(B), 34 IPC. A complaint to that effect was filed by one Kundan Rajak, a resident of Village Sothia, PS Rahatgarh. Acting on that complaint, the appellant was charge-sheeted, along with two others, vide proceedings dated 6.5.2002 by the Superintendant of Police, Sagar. The following are the charges levelled against the appellant:1. He demonstrated gross negligence and lack of interest in discharge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.7734 OF1997CENTER OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS, A FEDERATION OF REGISTERED TRADE UNIONS Versus PETITIONER(S) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.1. The petitioner had challenged the execution of the Power Project Agreement (PPA) and the modified power project agreements first of which was executed in the year 1993 by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short the MSEB) in favour of Dabhol Power Corporation Limited (for short DPC) before the Bombay High Court.2. Though the High Court came to the conclusion that the action of the Board and the Governments concerned was 1 questionable and that everything was not above board, it dismissed the writ petition(s) on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to place on record before the Court any material justifying the allegations as regards corruption, bribery, fraud and misrepresentation.3. Thereafter, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.5296-5297/2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.23318-23319/2017) Reportable Shri Yogiraj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. Appellant(s) Versus Vidya (Dead) Thru Lrs. & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Leave granted. These appeals arise from the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 16 December 2015 and 1 March 2017. The dispute relates to the termination of the services of the original respondent (since deceased) after a disciplinary enquiry. The original respondent was engaged as a Head Mistress by the third appellant, Anjanabai Zode Kanya Vidyalaya, Ashti in the District of Wardha in Maharashtra. A charge-sheet was issued to the employee on 15 January 1998 levelling as many as 53 charges, including a charge of mis- appropriation. An Enquiry Committee of three members was constituted under Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Cond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC658IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.20817 OF2022KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY & ANR. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS T.P. MURALI @ MURALI THAVARA PANEN & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL, J.1. Heard Shri R. Basant, senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gaurav Agrawal, senior counsel for the respondent.2. Kerala Agricultural University has preferred this Special Leave Petition challenging the judgment and order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No.298 of 2022, T.P. Murali vs. Kerala Agricultural University. The Division Bench 1 after setting aside the judgment dated 21.12.2021 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.17803 of 2021, quashed the order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the university terminating the services of the respondent T.P. Murali.3. The Division Bench in allowing the writ appeal, though quashed the termination order pass...
Tag this Judgment!