Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Supreme Court Affirms Deputy Commissioner's Dismissal Power and Validity of Regulation 7

        TARA CHANDKHATRI Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

        TARA CHANDKHATRI Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. - 1977 AIR 567, 1977 (2) SCR 198, 1977 (1) SCC 472 Issues Involved:
        1. Competence of the Deputy Commissioner to dismiss the appellant.
        2. Validity of Regulation 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959.
        3. Whether the disciplinary authority's order was vitiated due to lack of recorded findings and reasons.
        4. Summary dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court without notice to the respondents.
        5. Allegations of mala fides against the respondents.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Competence of the Deputy Commissioner to Dismiss the Appellant:
        The appellant contended that his dismissal by the Deputy Commissioner (Education) was illegal as his appointing authority was the Commissioner under section 92 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The Court rejected this contention, noting that the appellant's appointment was made by the Deputy Commissioner, who had plenary powers delegated by the Commissioner. Therefore, there was no legal bar to the appellant's dismissal by the Deputy Commissioner, and no breach of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 95 of the Act occurred.

        2. Validity of Regulation 7:
        The appellant argued that Regulation 7, which conferred power on the Deputy Commissioner to dismiss municipal employees drawing a monthly salary of less than Rs. 350, was inconsistent with section 95 of the Act and thus void. The Court found that Regulation 7 was consistent with section 95, which allowed municipal employees to be dismissed by such authority as prescribed by the regulations. The prohibition in the first proviso to section 95(1) was applicable only if the dismissal was by an authority subordinate to the one that appointed the employee, which was not the case here.

        3. Vitiation of the Disciplinary Authority's Order:
        The appellant claimed that the disciplinary authority's order was vitiated as it neither recorded its findings on the charges nor provided reasons for the dismissal. The Court held that it was not necessary for the disciplinary authority to record findings if it concurred with the inquiry officer's report. The Deputy Commissioner's order clearly stated agreement with the inquiry officer's findings, thereby fulfilling the requirement. The Court referenced previous decisions, emphasizing that an order of concurrence does not need to be elaborate or detailed.

        4. Summary Dismissal of the Writ Petition:
        The appellant argued that the High Court should not have dismissed the writ petition in limine without issuing a notice to the respondents. The Court found that the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition summarily as it did not raise arguable points of law or make out a prima facie case requiring investigation.

        5. Allegations of Mala Fides:
        The appellant alleged mala fides against the respondents. The Court reiterated that allegations of mala fides must be supported by specific particulars making out a prima facie case. The allegations in the appellant's writ petition were deemed insufficient to establish malus animus. Thus, the High Court was correct in dismissing the petition in limine.

        Conclusion:
        The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the Deputy Commissioner's authority to dismiss the appellant, the consistency of Regulation 7 with the Act, the sufficiency of the disciplinary authority's order, and the High Court's summary dismissal of the writ petition. The allegations of mala fides were found to be unsubstantiated. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found