Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

PREM NARAIN Vs. M/S SWADESHI COTTON MILLS, JUHI & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 1403 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 15, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

SHOBHA RAM RATURI Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.& ORS

Appeal (Civil), 11325 of 2011, Judgment Date: Dec 09, 2015

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement dated 31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

BRIJ BIHARI SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.(R-1,4,7)

Appeal (Civil), 1217 of 2011, Judgment Date: Nov 20, 2015

It is well settled that a person who is required to answer a charge imposed should know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. The delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. The delinquent must also be given a chance to Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Vs. R.K. ZALPURI AND ORS

Appeal (Civil), 8390-8391 of 2015, Judgment Date: Oct 08, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

JAGDISH LAL GAMBHIR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 6975 of 2009, Judgment Date: Oct 06, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

Appeal (Civil), 8064 of 2015, Judgment Date: Sep 30, 2015

But the question is, whether dismissal is the only option in such situations where an employee is found unfit for service. We have no doubt in our mind that indiscipline of any sort cannot be tolerated at all in a disciplined force. However, in the factual background of the appellant which we have referred to above, the disciplinary authority or at least the appellate authority, should have considered whether a punishment other than dismissal would have been Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF M.P. Vs. MOHAN LAL

Appeal (Civil), 6650 of 2015, Judgment Date: Aug 28, 2015

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the Order dated 15.09.2014 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 9675 of 2014 titled as “State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vinod Kumar Tiwari”, in our considered opinion, it is a fit case where some compensation should be awarded to the respondent instead of directing the appellant to reinstate Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

Appeal (Civil), 5778 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jul 29, 2015

Full Judgment

Delhi High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RAJESH KUMAR GANDHI Vs SHRIRAM INSTITUTE FOR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

LPA, 102 of 2013, Judgment Date: Jul 27, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ANR. Vs. PANNALAL CHOUDHURY & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 5070 of 2008, Judgment Date: Jul 01, 2015

Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Ashish Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh & ors

WPS->WRIT PETITON SERVICE MATTER, 1182 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 08, 2015

The issue with which this Court is required to deal is whether nondisclosure of registration of a criminal case, in which the petitioner has already been acquitted would make him eligible for remaining in employment? 8. In the matter of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchan And Others1, the Supreme Court has held that issue of obtaining appointment by misrepresentation is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. Pendency of criminal Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

K.P. Manu Versus Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate

Appeal (Civil), 7065 of 2008, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

As we perceive, the controversy fundamentally has three arenas, namely, (1) whether on conversion and at what stage a person born to Christian parents can, after reconversion to the Hindu religion, be eligible to claim the benefit of his original caste; (ii) whether after his eligibility is accepted and his original community on a collective basis takes him within its fold, he still can be denied the Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. DILEEP KUMAR SINGH

Appeal (Civil), 2466 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

These appeals raise an interesting question as to  the  interpretation of a proviso contained in  Section  47  of  the  Persons  with  Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of  Rights  and  Full  Participation)  Act, 1995 (in short the "1995 Act"). It is well settled that the provisions  of  a  statute  must  be  read harmoniously together.  However, if this is not possible then it is  settled law that where there is a conflict between  two  Sections,  and  you  cannot reconcile the two, you have to determine which is the leading provision  Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1662 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 09, 2015

In absence thereof the second marriage  is a misconduct under the Conduct Rules- Polygamy  was  not  integral  part  of  religion  and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25.- Even if bigamy be regarded as an  integral  part of Hindu religion, Rule 27 of the U.P. Government  Servants'  Conduct  Rules requiring permission of the  Government  before  contracting  such  marriage must be held to come  under  the  protection  of  Article  25(2)(b)  of  the Constitution- What  is permitted or not prohibited by  a  religion  does  not  become  Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

DIWAN SINGH Vs. L.I.C. & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 3655 of 2010, Judgment Date: Jan 05, 2015

This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Sanjay Bharti Vs State of Chhattisgarh and others.

WPS->WRIT PETITON SERVICE MATTER, 6556 of 2011, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 2014

A probationer has no right to hold the post and his service can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post held by him. If the competent authority holds an inquiry for judging the suitability of the probationer or for his further continuance in service or for confirmation and such inquiry is the basis for taking decision to terminate his service, then the action of Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Fakhruzamma Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Appeal (Crl.), 2086 of 2013, Judgment Date: Dec 12, 2013

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Bsnl Versus Bhurumal

Appeal (Civil), 10957 of 2013, Judgment Date: Dec 11, 2013

It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of theIndustrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even afterhe is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization. Thus when he Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Tanuram Sahu Vs The State Government of Chhattisgarh and another

WP->WRIT PETITION, 6240 of 2005, Judgment Date: Nov 27, 2013

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

Pradip Kumar Vs. Union Of India and Ors.

Appeal (Civil), 9082 of 2012, Judgment Date: Dec 14, 2012

Full Judgment