uncategorised

illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, held, not attracted in this case. Courts in exercise of power under judicial review, held, cannot interfere with selections made by expert bodies, as in this case, by reassessing comparative merits of candidates, unless vitiated by bias, mala fides or contrary to statutory provisions. None of these vitiating factors were […]

Election petition based on allegations of corrupt practices not supported by an affidavit in Form 25, as prescribed under R. 94-A of the 1961 Rules cannot be thrown out at threshold. Non-filing of affidavit or non-filing of proper verification is technical defect which is curable by allowing candidate to file proper affidavit. [A. Manju v.

Liability of insurer with regard to fire incident at the warehouse of assured under the first policy is excluded, where fire incident also covered by a second policy (a “marine policy” as per terms of the first policy in this case) and the first policy excludes liability in such event. Exclusion clause(s) in insurance policy

Employer’s liability to pay compensation: Appellant driver of goods carrier meeting with serious accident resulting in his right upper limb above wrist joint being amputated consequent to which he losing his capacity to drive vehicle. Commissioner was justified in finding appellant’s disability at 100%. Para 9. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and will

The view taken by the Commissioner had been a possible view of the matter in the given set of facts and circumstances. When no substantial question of law arising within meaning of S. 30 nor were findings of Commissioner perverse or suffering from any such manifest illegality as to give rise to a “substantial question

As allegations of fraud committed by employee concerned on employer Bank were fully established, superannuation of employee concerned in the meantime is not relevant. Bank employees always hold position of trust where honesty and integrity are sine qua non and it would never be advisable to deal with such matters leniently. Dismissal restored. Para 10

Amendment having retrospective operation divesting employee of benefit already granted to him under existing Rules, violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Employees who had opted for Pension Scheme had vested/accrued rights and any amendment to contrary made with retrospective effect taking away vested right accrued to employee under existing Rules was impermissible.

Held, since no financial loss was caused to bank, on the contrary decision to reduce loan amount was taken in bank’s interest, and fact that in appellant’s service span of 28 years, no allegations were made against him, punishment of removal for charges proved and misconduct established, is too harsh and disproportionate. Substitution of punishment

Though it is settled law that the Rules applicable in matters of determination of pension are those which are in force at the time of retirement, but, held, that does not mean that employer can depart from this principle arbitrarily and confer benefit of Rules in force at the time of appointment, for computation of

In this case appellants were promoted as Assistant Director (Official Language) on ad hoc/officiating basis during years 1993-95 and 2000. High Court by impugned judgment recalled judgment dt. 4-11-2011 and affirmed order of Tribunal directing promotion of appellants in accordance with the 2002 Rules on ground that in Mishri Lal, (2011) 14 SCC 739 it