//
archives

Assistant Manager

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Service Matter – Higher post salary when entitled for – whether the appellant is entitled to salary of high post where in he had worked for few years as in charge with specific terms – Apex court held that The order dated 28th February, 2001, by which the appellant was allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant Manager had made it clear that the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit therefrom including higher salary and further that he would continue to draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. If the above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge duties in the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can be overlooked or ignored and dismissed the appeal =CIVIL APPEAL NO.7692 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5396 OF 2013) A. FRANCIS … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS THE MANAGEMENT OF METROPOLITAN … RESPONDENT (S) TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., TAMIL NADU = 2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41827

Service Matter – Higher post salary when entitled for – whether the appellant is entitled to salary of high post where in he had worked for few years as in charge with specific terms – Apex court held that The order dated 28th  February,  2001,  by  which  the  appellant  was allowed to discharge duties in the … Continue reading

Insecticides Act,1968 -It is not disputed that on 30.10.1998, i.e. before the filing of the complaint, Annexure P-1, an application was filed by the manufacturer with a prayer that the complainant be directed to produce the sample in court and the sample may be got analysed from any Laboratory at the cost and expenses of the petitioner. Despite the prayer made in the application, neither the sample was produced in the court, nor was sent for re-testing. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, the court as its own discretion or at the request of the complainant or accused, can cause the sample of Insecticides produced before it to be sent for test or analysis to the Central Laboratory. Admittedly, the sample was not produced for re-analysis, at the request made on behalf of manufacturer, who was co-accused in the complaint and in this way, the petitioner was deprived of his valuable right to get the sample re-analysed. These very grounds prevailed upon the court at the time the complaint qua the manufacturer was quashed in Criminal Misc. No. 3737-M of 1994. Accordingly, the complaint against the petitioner too deserves to be quashed, being an abuse of process of the court.” In view of above settled position of law, entire exercise by the court in violation of accused right vested and conferred under section 24 (3) and (4) of the Act will be futile and fruitless yielding no result in favour of the prosecution. Concludingly, this 482 Cr.P.C. Application is allowed. Prosecution of applicants in case no. 1206 of 2005, State versus Satish Kumar Tyagi and others, under section 29(1) of Insecticides Act,1968 pending before C.J.M., Bijnor is hereby quashed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved AFR CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATON NO.31053 OF 2009 Bharat Insecticides Ltd. and another…….Applicants. VERSUS State of U.P………………………………..Respondent. Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. through it’s Zonal Business Manager, Ghaziabad (A1) and it’s Assistant Manager, Manoj Kumar(A2) have invoked inherent power of this court, U/S 482 Cr.P.C., through present … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,870,165 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com