Court : Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:5. h December, 2014 % + WP(C) No.150/2002 NEW GREEN FIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL .. Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Garg & Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advs. Versus THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY & ORS. .. Respondents Through: None. CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The petition impugns the order dated 18th July, 2001, of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Gratuity Act) in proceeding No.G21/2000/Sough Region/5675 initiated by the respondent No.3 Mrs. P. Satyavani, rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner of the said respondent No.3 employed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) with the petitioner School being not an employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act and resultantly, holding the proceeding initiated by the respondent No.3 Mrs. P. Satyavani to be maintainable and listing it for evidence.2. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority under the Gratu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:5. h December, 2014 % + WP(C) No.150/2002 NEW GREEN FIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL .. Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Garg & Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advs. Versus THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY & ORS. .. Respondents Through: None. CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The petition impugns the order dated 18th July, 2001, of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Gratuity Act) in proceeding No.G21/2000/Sough Region/5675 initiated by the respondent No.3 Mrs. P. Satyavani, rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner of the said respondent No.3 employed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) with the petitioner School being not an employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act and resultantly, holding the proceeding initiated by the respondent No.3 Mrs. P. Satyavani to be maintainable and listing it for evidence.2. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority under the Gratu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR121]; ILR2008KAR1819; 2008(1)KarLJ695; (2008)ILLJ943Kant; ILR2008(2)Kar1819; 2008(1)KLJ695; 2008(1)KCCR241; 2008(1)AIRKarR441; 2008-I-LLJ943; 2008LabIC(NOC)339(Kar)(DB)
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. As the dispute between the parties lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, the appeal is heard for final disposal.2. Brief facts of the case necessary for consideration and disposal of this appeal are:(i) The appellant is a Company engaged in paints and varnishes Industry. The 2nd respondent was employed as sales representative by the appellant on 1.7.1985. He has resigned from service of the appellant with effect from 1.4.1996. Thereafter he was paid an amount of Rs. 2,128.50 as gratuity, as per the scheme of the appellant 2nd respondent being dissatisfied with the said payment, had filed an application under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') in Form N, before the Controlling Authority to determine the amount of gratuity payable to him. In the annexure to the said application, the appellant has stated that the post held by him was 'sales representative' and he had put ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1988]63CompCas405(AP)
Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Two questions of law arise in this appeal, namely : Whether the expressions 'agriculture' and 'agriculturist' in their ordinary sense include 'horticulture' and 'horticulturist'? Whether section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which came into force with effect from June 21, 1984, applies to appeals pending on that date 2. Section 21A declares : 'Not withstanding anything contained in the usurious Loans Act, 1918, or any other law relating to indebtedness in force in any State, a transaction between a banking company and its debtor shall not be reopened by any court on the ground that the rate of interest charged by the banking company in respect of such transaction is excessive.' 3. Factual matrix : Defendants are the appellants. The respondent, State Bank of India, filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,35,927.86 with interest at the rate of 14% per annum on the said amount from the date of suit till realisation. The bank's claim, in short, is the fol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD221; 2003(2)ALT470; (2003)IILLJ857AP
ORDERGoda Raghuarm, J.1. W.P. Nos. 25745 of 2001, 18437 of 2001 and 26576 of 2001 and Batch, constitute three classes of disputes between the management of M/s Hindustan Zinc Limited, Visakhapatnam, a Government of India Undertaking and the workmen of Lead Smelter Unit at Visakhapatnam, an Undertaking of Hindustan Zinc Ltd.2. Twenty employees of the Lead Smelter Unit have filed W.P. No. 25745 of 2001 challenging the order of the Government of India dated 22.12.2000 granting permission for closure of the Lead Plant at Visakhapatnam, under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') with effect from 24.1.2001, on various grounds. Contesting the discharge of workmen on the closure of the Lead Smelter Unit and disputing the claim of the management that redeployment of the workmen of the Lead Plant to other plants of the Company was not possible, one of the recognised unions sought reference of the dispute under Section 10 of the Act, after conciliation in this r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC604; JT1990(4)SC293; 1990(2)SCALE883; [1990]Supp2SCR393
ORDERK.N. Saikia, J.1. These seven appeals by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India are from the common Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 20.11.1970 in several appeals and writ petitions. The appellants are the tenants and respondents are the landholders or their legal representatives, as the case may be, in respect of the tenanted agricultural lands of the hitherto inam estates of Kukunuru and Veerabhadrapuram villages in the West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh. After coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (A.P. Act 25 of 1948), hereinafter referred to as 'the Estates Abolition Act', the inam estates were abolished and the land stood vested in the Government free of all encumbrances. The pre-existing right, title and interest of erstwhile landholders ceased except to claim ryotwari patta. The tenants were not liable to be evicted pending the proceedings for issuance ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)2MLJ16
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. The averments of the plaint are as follows: The suit property belong to the plaintiffs. The 2nd plaintiff has been personally cultivating the lands. It has been recorded in his name by the Tenancy Record Officer also. The defendant was engaged by the 2nd plaintiff for irrigating the lands. His services were terminated since he did not do the work properly. He filed a suit in O.S. No. 1152 of 1974 on the file of District Munsif s Court, Tiruchirapalli for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with his possession. In the said suit he claims to be a cultivating tenant. Interim injunction was granted in his favour. Taking advantage of the same, he has trespassed into the suit property in the 2nd week of August, 1974 and harvested the crops raised by the plaintiffs. The defendant has no right or interest in the suit property. He is also liable to pay the income he has realised by selling the paddy raised by the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS, J.1. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to strike down the notification dated 17.8.2010 Annexure L amending the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment & Promotion Regulations, Employees [Probation] Regulations and Employees [Seniority] Regulations in so far as it relates to the recruitment and minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Lineman; to quash the notification dated 12.12.2011, Annexure-M inviting applications for the post of Assistant Lineman and for a writ of mandamus to allow the petitioners to apply for the post of Assistant Lineman.2. The erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board was entrusted with the job of the electrical power transmission and distribution. Subsequently, this Karnataka Electricity Board was renamed as 'Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited1 i.e., the respondent herein. The respondent established an Industrial Training Centre to impart training for b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO STRIKING DOWN THE RESPONDENT’S AMENDMENT VIDE ORDER NO.KPTCL/B16/7962/2009-10 DATED 17.08.2010 ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.)1. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to strike down the notification dated 17.8.2010 Annexure-L amending the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, Employees [Probation] Regulations and Employees [Seniority] Regulations in so far as it relates to the recruitment and minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Lineman; to quash the notification dated 12.12.2011, Annexure-M inviting applications for the post of Assistant Lineman and for a writ of mandamus to allow the petitioners to apply for the post of Assistant Lineman.2. The erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board was entrusted with the job of the electrical power transmission and distribution. Subsequently, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. No.1000 of 2003 (Recommendation of CEC dated 20.11.2003) WITH I.A. Nos.982984 of 2003 AND I.A. Nos.10261028 of 2004 AND I.A. Nos. 11231124 of 2004 AND I.A. Nos.11971199 of 2004 AND I.A. Nos. 12101211 of 2004 AND I.A. Nos.12501251 of 2004 AND I.A. No.1412 of 2005 AND I.A. No.1512 of 2006 AND I.A. No.1992 of 2007 AND1I.A. No.3880 of 2015 AND I.A. No.96949 of 2019 AND I.A. No.117831 of 2019 AND I.A. No.65571 of 2021 In the Matter of: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.202 of 1995 In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad ..Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India and Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.These proceedings originate from the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India registered as W.P. (Civil) No.202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors.), which is in the nature of a public interest litigation. It was instituted for protection of forest lands in the Nilgiris district of t...
Tag this Judgment!