Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-09-2014
..... section 5a and section 5b, respectively, of the employees' provident fund and miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the "indian airlines" and "air india" corporations established under section 3 of the air corporations act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the life insurance corporation of india established under section 3 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or the oil and natural gas commission established under section 3 of the oil and natural gas commission act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the deposit insurance and credit guarantee corporation established under section 3 of the deposit insurance and credit guarantee corporation act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the central warehousing corporation established under section 3 of the warehousing corporations act ..... thus noticed that in this case cited by mr. malik, the issue of a contractual appointment for specific periods was not in question and as such the applicability of sub-clause (bb) of clause (oo) to section 2 of the act was not involved. however, the applicability of section 25-f, even in a case where an appointment was without recourse to rules of recruitment, equal opportunity and de hors a sanctioned post ..... court award. with regard to backwages payable, it would now be in relation to the emoluments due under section 17-b of the act.38. as regards the application filed seeking benefits of section 17b of the act, which should correctly have been decided by this court (this bench), at the initial stage itself; .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-11-2014
..... section (1) of section 15 after the date aforesaid. we may note that s151) prohibits sub-letting of premises.10. as far as the insurance business in india is concerned, prior to independence, it was owned and operated by private entities. the governing law for insurance in india was, and still is the insurance act, 1938. post-independence, the industrial policy resolution of 1956 stated that the life insurance industry in india was to be nationalised. therefore, the life insurance corporation act of 1956 was passed creating the life insurance corporation (lic), as a statutory corporation, and transferring the assets of all the private life insurance ..... life insurance corporation. as far as life insurance corporation is concerned, the life insurance business was nationalised under the life insurance corporation act, 1956. therefore, as far as the premises of lic are concerned, they will come under the ambit of the public premises act from 16.9.1958, i.e the date from which the act is brought into force. as far as nationalised banks are concerned, their nationalization is governed by the banking companies (acquisition and transfer of undertakings) act, 1970, and therefore, the application of public premises act ..... otherwise than as provided under the guidelines.43. the instructions contained in this resolution are undoubtedly guidelines, and are advisory in character and do not confer any rights on the tenants as held in para 23 of new insurance assurance company vs. nusli neville .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-30-2014
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2699 of 2012 30-12-2014 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd..Appellant Pulliachari and 2 others. Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents:Sri Manda Adam : ?. Cases referred:1. 2013(4)ALT35SC) 2. 2001 (8) SCC1973. (2014)1 SCC2444. 2005 (6)SCC1722005 ACJ -1323 5. 2013 ACJ -1 6. 2006 (2)SCC6417. (2001 (5) SCC175=2001 ACJ827(SC) 8. [(2004) 5 SCC385: AIR2004SC2107 9. 2010 (4 ) ALD531(DB) 10. 2011)(8) Scale-240 11. (2012) 2 SCC35612. 1977 ACJ118(SC) 13. 1987 ACJ561(SC) 14. 1996 ACJ555(SC) 15. 2014(1)SCC680 16. 2014 (1) SCC680 17. 2011 (10)SCC509 18. 2002 (7) SCC456 19. (2014)3 SCC59020. 2005 ACJ121. (2004)5 SCC384HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2699 of 2012 JUDGMENT : The appellant-insurer filed this appeal aggrieved by the order/award dated 30.07.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.586 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-24-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Before: The Honble Justice Debangsu Basak W.P.No.942 of 2014 Kingfisher Airlines Limited & ORS.versus Union of India & ORS.For the Petitioners : Mr.S.Pal, Sr.Advocate Mr.Siddharta Mitra, Sr.Advocate Ms.Mousumi Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.Soumitra Dutta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.For the R.B.I : Mr.Utpal Bose, Sr.Advocate Ms.Suchismita Chatterjee (Ghosh).Advocate Mr.Malay Kr. Ghosh, Advocate Hearing concluded on : December 18, 2014 Judgment on : December 24, 2014 Hirak Mitra, Sr.Advocate Rishad Medora, Advocate Prantik Gharai, Advocate Prantar Basu Chowdhuri, Advocate DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- The writ petitioners were declared as wilful defaulters by the Grievance Redressal Committee on declaration of Wilful Defaulter of the United Bank of India by its Order dated September 1, 2014. This decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee of United Bank of India is under challenge in this writ petition. Mr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-23-2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA C.M.A.(MD)No.1325 of 2008 and Cros.Obj.(MD)No.26 of 2014 Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, through its Managing Director, Post Box No.46, Railway Station Road, #Kumbakonam.Appellant in CMA and respondent in Cross Obj. Vs Arumugam .Respondent in CMA and Cross Objector Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in MCo.No.82 of 2005 dated 27.02.2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur. Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC to enhance the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur, in MCo.No.82 of 2005 dated 27.02.2008. !For Appellant in CMA and respondent in Cross Obj. : Mr.M.Prakash For Respondent in CMA : Mr.V.Balaji and Cross Objector :COMMON JUDGMENT Reserved on : 16.12....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-23-2014
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.380 of 2008 and batch 23-12-2014 National Insurance Company Limited .Appellant Manne Laxmi and 7 others.... Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.R.Brizmohan Singh Counsel for the Respondents:Sri K.Madhava Reddy Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy for A.P.S.R.T.C : ?. Cases referred:1. AIR1997SC4812. 2014(1) Decisions Today 122 3. 1965 (1) All.E.R. 563 4. 1963 (2) All.E.R. 432 5. 1969 (1) All.E.R5556. 1995 ACJ366(SC) CA Nos.1799 & 1800 of 1989 with SLP (Civil) 4586 of 1989 7. (2011)8 SCC1428. (1988) 3 SCC19. (2009) 1 SCC55810. AIR2003SC1446= (2003)3 SCC9711. 2001 (8) SCC19712. 2013(4)ALT35SC) 13. 2014(6) ALD28114. 2009 ACJ1298HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.380 of 2008 & CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.9366 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT : The 2nd respondent insurer among the 4 respondents, preferred the appeal impugning the award of the Tribunal in O.P. No.983 of 2004 dated 28.03.2007, in the claim filed by the claimants under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Dec-22-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 2878 of 2001 Som Nath Banerjee ....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.2. Dilip Kumar .....Opposite Parties ---- Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Advocate For the State : APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr.Awanish Shekhar, Advocate ----- 18/22.12.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2.2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 2.3.2001 by which cognizance for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with complaint case no 155 of 2000 has been taken.3. The prosecution story as would appear from the complaint petition is that the accused persons are alleged to have accepted a policy being Policy No. 551328477, which was communicated to the complainant through a postc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + RESERVED ON:23. 09.2014 PRONOUNCED ON:22. 12.2014 CRL.A. 1111/2013 RADHEY SHYAM versus STATE CRL.A. 119/2014 JAIPAL SINGH ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ..... Appellant versus STATE ..... Respondent Appearance: Mr. R.M. Tufail with Mr. Anwar. A. Khan, Mr.Abdul Faroor and Mr. Vishal Raj, Advocates for appellant in Crl.A.1111/2013. Ms. Nandita Rao, Advocate for appellant in Crl.A.119/2014 with Inspr. Jorawar Singh, PS Prashant Vihar. Sh. Vinod Diwakar, Advocate for State in both the appeals. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. These appeals by accused are directed against a judgment convicting them for the offences under Section 302/392/411/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act rendered in SC No.181/2009 on 24.05.2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. They also appeal against the sentence of life imprisonment and other prison terms, as well as fine imposed on them by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + RESERVED ON:23. 09.2014 PRONOUNCED ON:22. 12.2014 CRL.A. 1111/2013 RADHEY SHYAM versus STATE CRL.A. 119/2014 JAIPAL SINGH ..... Appellant ..... Respondent ..... Appellant versus STATE ..... Respondent Appearance: Mr. R.M. Tufail with Mr. Anwar. A. Khan, Mr.Abdul Faroor and Mr. Vishal Raj, Advocates for appellant in Crl.A.1111/2013. Ms. Nandita Rao, Advocate for appellant in Crl.A.119/2014 with Inspr. Jorawar Singh, PS Prashant Vihar. Sh. Vinod Diwakar, Advocate for State in both the appeals. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. These appeals by accused are directed against a judgment convicting them for the offences under Section 302/392/411/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act rendered in SC No.181/2009 on 24.05.2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. They also appeal against the sentence of life imprisonment and other prison terms, as well as fine imposed on them by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Dec-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 30-8-2013 passed by respondent No.2 thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner under provisions of Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short the said Act). Said appeal had been preferred by the petitioner challenging communication dated 7-9-2012 issued by respondent No.2 Chief Officer whereby the petitioner was informed that the permission granted to him to undertake newspaper reporting had been cancelled. 3. The petitioner is employed as an Assistant Teacher with the respondent No.2 Municipal Council. According to the petitioner, he was interested in journalism. He, therefore, initially sought permission from the Municipal Council to undertake newspaper journalism by application dated 28-11-1989. The Municipal Council through its Chief Officer gran...
Tag this Judgment!