Judgments - Award
Union Bank of India & another vs. Vinod Kumar Dwivedi
Law laid down - Labour/Service Law - The respondent/workman was dismissed from service on the ground that he was party to illegal release of pension of a widow to an incompetent person. The Industrial Tribunal opined that workman was a private driver of a Bank Manager till 2009. Thereafter, he became Peon in the Bank and not responsible for sanction or release of pension. The Clerical Staff and officers who were responsible for sanction and release of pension were inflicted with Full Judgment
Shakti Nath & Ors. Vs Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment No.3 Ltd. & Ors.
SHAKTI NATH & ORS. Versus ALPHA TIGER CYPRUS INVESTMENT NO.3 LTD. & ORS.
Chandigarh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Punjab & Anr.
CHANABASAPPA VERSUS KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD. & ANR.
M/S. DYNA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD.
Sri Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda versus Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited
CENTRAL COTTAGE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS RADHEY SHYAM
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. VERSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
M/S. CANARA NIDHI LIMITED VERSUS M. SHASHIKALA AND OTHERS
GENERAL MANAGER, ELECTRICAL RENGALI HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, ORISSA AND OTHERS VERSUS SRI GIRIDHARI SAHU AND OTHERS
M/S SHAHI AND ASSOCIATES VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR VERSUS GOPAL DAS (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs & ORS
SITAC PVT. LTD. VERSUS BANWARI LAL SONS PVT LTD & ORS
Balwant Singh (D) through LRs. Gurbinder Singh Versus The State of Haryana & Others Etc. Etc.
Central Board of Trustees Versus Smt. Eravati
MMTC LTD. Versus M/S VEDANTA LTD.
State of Uttarakhand & Anr VERSUS Raj Kumar
Management of the Barara Cooperative MarketingcumProcessing Society Ltd Versus Workman Pratap Singh
M/s S.V.E.C. Construction Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others
Law Laid Down - The question whether time is essence of contract or not, depends upon the intention of the parties. Here, the petitioner sought modification of work order so as to complete it within the time granted and then himself chose todetermine the contract. Thus, he understood that the time was essence of the contract. Such conduct of the petitioner as well as on behalf of the respondents shows that the parties intended to complete the contract within time frame. Full Judgment