Search Results for "Saurashtra Rules"

116 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 116 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Order of Government Servant Under Rule 165-A as Not Dismissal and Not Requiring Compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Compulsory Retirement Order Upheld as Valid Under Rule 165-A, Service Rules Not Violative of Article 311(2).

The case involved a government servant who was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 165-A of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, as applicable to...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Gujarat High Court's Order Requiring Certificate for Letters Patent Appeal. Single Judge Judgment in Transferred First Appeal Held Appealable Without Certificate Under Clause 15 of Letters Patent After Merger of Saurashtra High Court.

The dispute arose out of a civil suit for recovery of money filed by the appellant in 1951 in a court in Saurashtra. The suit was decreed by the trial...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Quashes Revenue Entries Cancellation Orders for Violation of Natural Justice. Petitioner's Property Rights Restored as Ex-Parte Cancellation Without Notice Held Illegal Under Articles 14, 19, 300A, 226, 227 of Constitution.

The petitioner, Thakkar Yogeshbhai Amritlal, filed a petition under Articles 14, 19, 300A, 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging multi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Telecom Company in Industrial Dispute, Holding Regional Business Head Not a 'Workman' Under Industrial Disputes Act. Managerial and Supervisory Duties Exclude Employee from Section 2(s) Definition Despite Absence of Power to Appoint or Dismiss.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s Bharti Airtel Limited against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had held that the respo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of States Reorganisation Act, 1956: Formation of Composite Bombay State Without Fresh Reference to State Legislature Upheld. Modification of Bill by Parliament Does Not Require Second Reference Under Proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution of India.

The case arose from a challenge to the constitutional validity of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Following the report of the States Reorganisati...